DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 first amendment to non-final filed on October 1, 2025.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, and 13–18 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1–18 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 1, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1–18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 10, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on July 31, 2025 and October 1, 2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Forms 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
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 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1–6 are directed to a process (“A digital currency payment method”), and claims 7–18 are directed to a machine (“An electronic device” and “A computer-readable storage medium”). Thus, claims 1–18 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 1–18, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
receiving a . . . currency exporting request sent by a first client, wherein the . . . currency exporting request indicates a transaction amount, wherein the transaction amount is directly generated by a second client, and is issued to the first client by means of a communication connection between the first client and the second client;
generating a first . . . currency corresponding to the transaction amount; and
issuing the first . . . currency or a circulation identifier of the first . . . currency to the first client, wherein when the communication connection between the first client and the second client is disconnected, re-establishing the communication connection, and ensuring, on a basis of transaction information, . . . wherein during the re-establishment of the communication connection, a communication connection establishment request client sends a communication connection establishment request carrying the transaction information to another client, so as to enable, when the communication connection establishment request is received, the another client to verify, according to pre-stored information, whether the transaction information carried by the communication connection establishment request is consistent with the pre-stored information; if so, verification is passed, indicating that the communication connection established by the communication connection establishment request and a foregoing communication connection are used for the same payment transaction, so as to re-establish the communication connection between the first client and the second client.
The claims, therefore, recite generating a currency for a transaction amount and verifying a transaction, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk. The claims also recite creating an identifier representing currency, which is the abstract idea of mental processes because it involves observations and evaluations that can be performed by the human mind.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies and computer components to implement this abstract idea (“digital currency”, “currency management apparatus”, “electronic device”, “processors”, “storage apparatus”, and “computer-readable storage medium”). The claims also recite “generating a first digital currency” and “at an application layer or a code layer, that a bottom communication connection re-established for a plurality of times carries information corresponding to the same payment transaction”. These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the computer to generate and issue a currency representation for a transaction amount and securely connect the parties. Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 7 and 13 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1. There are no additional elements recited in these claims other than the generic technology and computer parts discussed above (“electronic device”, “digital currency”, “processors”, “storage apparatus”, and “computer-readable storage medium”). The only differences are that the steps of claim 1 are performed by a system in claim 7 and implemented by computer program instructions in claim 13. Thus, because the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, claims 7 and 13 are also not patent eligible. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Dependent claims 2–6, 8–12, and 14–18 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.
For claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, and 15, the additional recited limitations of these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea. These dependent claims only recite verifying the currency through a currency record, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“digital currency” and “currency management apparatus”) . These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 4–6, 10–12, and 16–18, the additional recited limitations of these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea. These dependent claims only recite receiving and verifying a payment code through a digital currency record, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“digital currency” and “currency management apparatus”) . These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills, U.S. Patent App. No. 2015/0242825 (“Mills”) in view of Altberg et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2008/0275813 (“Altberg”).
For claim 1, Mills teaches:
A digital currency payment method, applied to a first currency management apparatus, and comprising (¶ 101: example method performed by client system):
receiving a digital currency exporting request sent by a first client, wherein the digital currency exporting request indicates a transaction amount (¶ 103: user initiates electronic currency request with currency request value amount) . . .;
generating a first digital currency corresponding to the transaction amount (¶ 117–118: requested amount of electronic currency generated); and
issuing the first digital currency or a circulation identifier (¶ 119: each unit has serial number) of the first digital currency to the first client (¶ 124: generated electronic currency transmitted to client system).
Mills does not teach: wherein the transaction amount is directly generated by a second client, and is issued to the first client by means of a communication connection between the first client and the second client; and wherein when the communication connection between the first client and the second client is disconnected, re-establishing the communication connection, and ensuring, on a basis of transaction information, at an application layer or a code layer, that a bottom communication connection re-established for a plurality of times carries information corresponding to the same payment transaction, wherein during the re-establishment of the communication connection, a communication connection establishment request client sends a communication connection establishment request carrying the transaction information to another client, so as to enable, when the communication connection establishment request is received, the another client to verify, according to pre-stored information, whether the transaction information carried by the communication connection establishment request is consistent with the pre- stored information; if so, verification is passed, indicating that the communication connection established by the communication connection establishment request and a foregoing communication connection are used for the same payment transaction, so as to re-establish the communication connection between the first client and the second client.
Altberg, however, teaches:
wherein the transaction amount is directly generated by a second client, and is issued to the first client by means of a communication connection between the first client and the second client (¶ 109: request received from seller to a customer, and connection established);
wherein when the communication connection between the first client and the second client is disconnected, re-establishing the communication connection (¶ 111–113: customer disconnected from seller and then reconnected), and ensuring, on a basis of transaction information, at an application layer or a code layer, that a bottom communication connection re-established for a plurality of times carries information corresponding to the same payment transaction (¶ 109: payment information carried within session), wherein during the re-establishment of the communication connection, a communication connection establishment request client sends a communication connection establishment request carrying the transaction information to another client (¶ 113–114: customer provides payment information to connection provider), so as to enable, when the communication connection establishment request is received, the another client to verify, according to pre-stored information, whether the transaction information carried by the communication connection establishment request is consistent with the pre- stored information (¶ 114: customer authenticated by connection provider): if so, verification is passed, indicating that the communication connection established by the communication connection establishment request and a foregoing communication connection are used for the same payment transaction, so as to re-establish the communication connection between the first client and the second client (¶ 113–114: customer reconnected after authentication of payment information).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electronic currency in Mills by adding the secure connection from Altberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating communications between transacting parties—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Altberg (¶ 7: Internet provides benefit of rapidly connecting parties; ¶ 8: invention connects seller and customer according to a request).
For claim 2, Mills and Altberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Mills further teaches:
The digital currency payment method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: verifying the first digital currency or the circulation identifier when the first digital currency or the circulation identifier sent by a second currency management apparatus corresponding to a second client is received (¶ 125: currency validated upon receiving);
sending a verification result of the first digital currency or the circulation identifier to the second currency management apparatus (¶ 125: confirmation sent to server system); and
updating a digital currency record corresponding to the first client when verification of the first digital currency or the circulation identifier is passed (¶ 178: record updated upon validation).
For claim 3, Mills and Altberg teach all the limitations of claim 2 above, and Mills further teaches:
The digital currency payment method as claimed in claim 2, wherein verifying the first digital currency or the circulation identifier comprises: verifying the first digital currency or the circulation identifier according to the digital currency record corresponding to the first client (¶ 176: valid based on serial number in electronic currency record).
For claim 4, Mills and Altberg teach all the limitations of claim 3 above, and Mills further teaches:
The digital currency payment method as claimed in claim 3, further comprising: when the transaction amount is greater than a threshold amount, receiving a payment code, which is sent by the second currency management apparatus corresponding to the second client, corresponding to the transaction amount (¶ 132: merchant system generates unique code; ¶ 135: PIN required for transactions over certain amount); and
verifying the payment code according to the digital currency record corresponding to the first client (¶ 132: code used to authenticate user).
For claim 5, Mills and Altberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Mills further teaches:
The digital currency payment method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: when the transaction amount is greater than a threshold amount, receiving a payment code, which is sent by the second currency management apparatus corresponding to the second client, corresponding to the transaction amount (¶ 132: merchant system generates unique code; ¶ 135: PIN required for transactions over certain amount); and
verifying the payment code according to a digital currency record corresponding to the first client (¶ 132: code used to authenticate user).
For claim 6, Mills and Altberg teach all the limitations of claim 2 above, and Mills further teaches:
The digital currency payment method as claimed in claim 2, further comprising: when the transaction amount is greater than a threshold amount, receiving a payment code, which is sent by the second currency management apparatus corresponding to the second client, corresponding to the transaction amount (¶ 132: merchant system generates unique code; ¶ 135: PIN required for transactions over certain amount); and
verifying the payment code according to the digital currency record corresponding to the first client (¶ 132: code used to authenticate user).
For claim 7, Mills teaches:
An electronic device for digital currency payment, comprising (¶ 102: computing device):
one or more processors (¶ 102: processors); and
a storage apparatus, configured to store one or more programs, wherein when the one or more programs are executed by the one or more processors, the one or more processors are enabled to implement following actions (¶ 102: memory storing programs for execution by processors to perform method):
receiving a digital currency exporting request sent by a first client, wherein the digital currency exporting request indicates a transaction amount (¶ 103: user initiates electronic currency request with currency request value amount) . . .;
generating a first digital currency corresponding to the transaction amount (¶ 117–118: requested amount of electronic currency generated); and
issuing the first digital currency or a circulation identifier (¶ 119: each unit has serial number) of the first digital currency to the first client (¶ 124: generated electronic currency transmitted to client system).
Mills does not teach: wherein the transaction amount is directly generated by a second client, and is issued to the first client by means of a communication connection between the first client and the second client; and wherein when the communication connection between the first client and the second client is disconnected, re-establishing the communication connection, and ensuring, on a basis of transaction information, at an application layer or a code layer, that a bottom communication connection re-established for a plurality of times carries information corresponding to the same payment transaction, wherein during the re-establishment of the communication connection, a communication connection establishment request client sends a communication connection establishment request carrying the transaction information to another client, so as to enable, when the communication connection establishment request is received, the another client to verify, according to pre-stored information, whether the transaction information carried by the communication connection establishment request is consistent with the pre- stored information; if so, verification is passed, indicating that the communication connection established by the communication connection establishment request and a foregoing communication connection are used for the same payment transaction, so as to re-establish the communication connection between the first client and the second client.
Altberg, however, teaches:
wherein the transaction amount is directly generated by a second client, and is issued to the first client by means of a communication connection between the first client and the second client (¶ 109: request received from seller to a customer, and connection established);
wherein when the communication connection between the first client and the second client is disconnected, re-establishing the communication connection (¶ 111–113: customer disconnected from seller and then reconnected), and ensuring, on a basis of transaction information, at an application layer or a code layer, that a bottom communication connection re-established for a plurality of times carries information corresponding to the same payment transaction (¶ 109: payment information carried within session), wherein during the re-establishment of the communication connection, a communication connection establishment request client sends a communication connection establishment request carrying the transaction information to another client (¶ 113–114: customer provides payment information to connection provider), so as to enable, when the communication connection establishment request is received, the another client to verify, according to pre-stored information, whether the transaction information carried by the communication connection establishment request is consistent with the pre- stored information (¶ 114: customer authenticated by connection provider): if so, verification is passed, indicating that the communication connection established by the communication connection establishment request and a foregoing communication connection are used for the same payment transaction, so as to re-establish the communication connection between the first client and the second client (¶ 113–114: customer reconnected after authentication of payment information).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electronic currency in Mills by adding the secure connection from Altberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating communications between transacting parties—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Altberg (¶ 7: Internet provides benefit of rapidly connecting parties; ¶ 8: invention connects seller and customer according to a request).
For claim 8, Mills and Altberg teach all the limitations of claim 7 above, and Mills further teaches:
The electronic device as claimed in claim 7, further comprising: verifying the first digital currency or the circulation identifier when the first digital currency or the circulation identifier sent by a second currency management apparatus corresponding to a second client is received (¶ 125: currency validated upon receiving);
sending a verification result of the first digital currency or the circulation identifier to the second currency management apparatus (¶ 125: confirmation sent to server system); and
updating a digital currency record corresponding to the first client when verification of the first digital currency or the circulation identifier is passed (¶ 178: record updated upon validation).
For claim 9, Mills and Altberg teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Mills further teaches:
The electronic device as claimed in claim 8, wherein verifying the first digital currency or the circulation identifier comprises: verifying the first digital currency or the circulation identifier according to the digital currency record corresponding to the first client (¶ 176: valid based on serial number in electronic currency record).
For claim 10, Mills and Altberg teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Mills further teaches:
The electronic device as claimed in claim 9, further comprising: when the transaction amount is greater than a threshold amount, receiving a payment code, which is sent by the second currency management apparatus corresponding to the second client, corresponding to the transaction amount (¶ 132: merchant system generates unique code; ¶ 135: PIN required for transactions over certain amount); and
verifying the payment code according to the digital currency record corresponding to the first client (¶ 132: code used to authenticate user).
For claim 11, Mills and Altberg teach all the limitations of claim 7 above, and Mills further teaches:
The electronic device as claimed in claim 7, further comprising: when the transaction amount is greater than a threshold amount, receiving a payment code, which is sent by the second currency management apparatus corresponding to the second client, corresponding to the transaction amount (¶ 132: merchant system generates unique code; ¶ 135: PIN required for transactions over certain amount); and
verifying the payment code according to a digital currency record corresponding to the first client (¶ 132: code used to authenticate user).
For claim 12, Mills and Altberg teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Mills further teaches:
The electronic device as claimed in claim 8, further comprising: when the transaction amount is greater than a threshold amount, receiving a payment code, which is sent by the second currency management apparatus corresponding to the second client, corresponding to the transaction amount (¶ 132: merchant system generates unique code; ¶ 135: PIN required for transactions over certain amount); and
verifying the payment code according to the digital currency record corresponding to the first client (¶ 132: code used to authenticate user).
For claim 13, Mills teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein when the program is executed by a processor, the processor is enabled to implement following actions (¶ 102: memory storing programs for execution by processors to perform method):
receiving a digital currency exporting request sent by a first client, wherein the digital currency exporting request indicates a transaction amount (¶ 103: user initiates electronic currency request with currency request value amount) . . .;
generating a first digital currency corresponding to the transaction amount (¶ 117–118: requested amount of electronic currency generated); and
issuing the first digital currency or a circulation identifier (¶ 119: each unit has serial number) of the first digital currency to the first client (¶ 124: generated electronic currency transmitted to client system).
Mills does not teach: wherein the transaction amount is directly generated by a second client, and is issued to the first client by means of a communication connection between the first client and the second client; and wherein when the communication connection between the first client and the second client is disconnected, re-establishing the communication connection, and ensuring, on a basis of transaction information, at an application layer or a code layer, that a bottom communication connection re-established for a plurality of times carries information corresponding to the same payment transaction, wherein during the re-establishment of the communication connection, a communication connection establishment request client sends a communication connection establishment request carrying the transaction information to another client, so as to enable, when the communication connection establishment request is received, the another client to verify, according to pre-stored information, whether the transaction information carried by the communication connection establishment request is consistent with the pre- stored information; if so, verification is passed, indicating that the communication connection established by the communication connection establishment request and a foregoing communication connection are used for the same payment transaction, so as to re-establish the communication connection between the first client and the second client.
Altberg, however, teaches:
wherein the transaction amount is directly generated by a second client, and is issued to the first client by means of a communication connection between the first client and the second client (¶ 109: request received from seller to a customer, and connection established);
wherein when the communication connection between the first client and the second client is disconnected, re-establishing the communication connection (¶ 111–113: customer disconnected from seller and then reconnected), and ensuring, on a basis of transaction information, at an application layer or a code layer, that a bottom communication connection re-established for a plurality of times carries information corresponding to the same payment transaction (¶ 109: payment information carried within session), wherein during the re-establishment of the communication connection, a communication connection establishment request client sends a communication connection establishment request carrying the transaction information to another client (¶ 113–114: customer provides payment information to connection provider), so as to enable, when the communication connection establishment request is received, the another client to verify, according to pre-stored information, whether the transaction information carried by the communication connection establishment request is consistent with the pre- stored information (¶ 114: customer authenticated by connection provider): if so, verification is passed, indicating that the communication connection established by the communication connection establishment request and a foregoing communication connection are used for the same payment transaction, so as to re-establish the communication connection between the first client and the second client (¶ 113–114: customer reconnected after authentication of payment information).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electronic currency in Mills by adding the secure connection from Altberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating communications between transacting parties—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Altberg (¶ 7: Internet provides benefit of rapidly connecting parties; ¶ 8: invention connects seller and customer according to a request).
For claim 14, Mills and Altberg teach all the limitations of claim 13 above, and Mills further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as claimed in claim 13, further comprising: verifying the first digital currency or the circulation identifier when the first digital currency or the circulation identifier sent by a second currency management apparatus corresponding to a second client is received (¶ 125: currency validated upon receiving);
sending a verification result of the first digital currency or the circulation identifier to the second currency management apparatus (¶ 125: confirmation sent to server system); and
updating a digital currency record corresponding to the first client when verification of the first digital currency or the circulation identifier is passed (¶ 178: record updated upon validation).
For claim 15, Mills and Altberg teach all the limitations of claim 14 above, and Mills further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as claimed in claim 14, wherein verifying the first digital currency or the circulation identifier comprises: verifying the first digital currency or the circulation identifier according to the digital currency record corresponding to the first client (¶ 176: valid based on serial number in electronic currency record).
For claim 16, Mills and Altberg teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Mills further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as claimed in claim 15, further comprising: when the transaction amount is greater than a threshold amount, receiving a payment code, which is sent by the second currency management apparatus corresponding to the second client, corresponding to the transaction amount (¶ 132: merchant system generates unique code; ¶ 135: PIN required for transactions over certain amount); and
verifying the payment code according to the digital currency record corresponding to the first client (¶ 132: code used to authenticate user).
For claim 17, Mills and Altberg teach all the limitations of claim 13 above, and Mills further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as claimed in claim 13, further comprising: when the transaction amount is greater than a threshold amount, receiving a payment code, which is sent by the second currency management apparatus corresponding to the second client, corresponding to the transaction amount (¶ 132: merchant system generates unique code; ¶ 135: PIN required for transactions over certain amount); and
verifying the payment code according to a digital currency record corresponding to the first client (¶ 132: code used to authenticate user).
For claim 18, Mills and Altberg teach all the limitations of claim 14 above, and Mills further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as claimed in claim 14, further comprising: when the transaction amount is greater than a threshold amount, receiving a payment code, which is sent by the second currency management apparatus corresponding to the second client, corresponding to the transaction amount (¶ 132: merchant system generates unique code; ¶ 135: PIN required for transactions over certain amount); and
verifying the payment code according to the digital currency record corresponding to the first client (¶ 132: code used to authenticate user).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed on October 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended independent claims recite additional elements sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application and amount to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant explains that the claims recite reestablishing a communication session by carrying information corresponding to the payment transaction, which guarantees the availability of the re-established session. Storing transaction information and using it for verification, however, is merely an implementation of the abstract idea recited above. The claims then merely apply a secure session to make the transaction more secure with this information. Rather than improving the technology itself in any way, the claims are instead merely applying the abstract idea to the generic technology recited, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, claims 1–18 do not include additional elements sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application or recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–18 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 7, and 13 and argues that Mills (U.S. Patent App. No. 2015/0242825) does not disclose these additional limitations. Claims 1, 7, and 13, however, are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Mills in view of Altberg (U.S. Patent App. No. 2008/0275813). Thus, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–18 are moot.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Those prior art references are as follows:
Colhoun et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0103394, discloses requesting and generating a digital token.
Zhou et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0228704, discloses generating a digital currency based on a currency issuance request and authentication.
Conclusion
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 DIVESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272–3430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM–8:00 PM 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, 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.
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.
/DIVESH PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights