DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed 11/28/2025.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Claims 4-10 and 14-20 are cancelled
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are pending.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues “Through updating the digital currency online and/or limiting a transaction frequency, the available storage space of the security ship can be increased. Furthermore, the amended Claim 1 recites the technical feature "when sending the prompt information about updating the digital currency online to the application or the terminal, combining a plurality of digital currencies into one digital currency of a corresponding denomination according to the plurality of digital currencies stored in the security chip and corresponding transaction information". In other words, by prompting the user to perform an online update, the claimed invention combines the plurality of digital currencies stored in the security chip into one digital currency. This increases the available storage space of the security chip, thereby facilitating the success of subsequent transactions.” Examiner disagrees.
The new amendments recite sending information about updating currency online and then doing a currency conversion. Neither of those steps recite an additional element or a technological improvement, either alone or in combination. Sending prompt information is signification extra solution activity of a generic computing device and currency conversion is a fundamental economic practice and the recited automation of it is not an additional element nor a technical improvement. The claims recite the security chip conditions for the recited claim steps but do not recite the technology of the conditions, yet applicant’s arguments and concept of a technical improvement are directed at the conditional statements not the positively recited limitations. The rejection is maintained.
103
Wang teaches when an available storage space of the security chip is less than a preset threshold, sending prompt information about updating the digital data online and/or limiting a transaction frequency to the application or the terminal; (Abstract; ¶ 33-39, 135-140; claim 11)
Wang– the channel allocation module is specifically configured to determine, for the first packet flow, an identifier of a channel whose rate is lower than a second threshold as the another channel identifier…sending a first message to notify the first chip to stop sending a tenth packet to a third chip of the egress node when a quantity of available storage resources corresponding to the third chip is less than a first threshold, wherein the third chip receives the updated first packet flow in a per-packet load sharing manner (¶ 33; claim 11)
when sending the prompt information about updating the digital data online to the application or the terminal, combining a plurality of digital data into one digital data of a corresponding denomination according to the plurality of digital data stored in the security chip and corresponding transaction information (Abstract; ¶ 33-39, 135-140; claim 11).
Claim Interpretation – According to the disclosure (¶ 515), “For example, a digital currency A with the denomination being 10, a digital currency B with the denomination being 20, and a digital currency C with the denomination being 30 are stored in the security chip. When online update is performed, the three digital currencies may be updated into one digital currency with the denomination being 60 by means of the currency management apparatus corresponding to the application or the terminal. ”
Wang– In this case, the another channel identifier needs to be allocated to the first packet flow. Usually, the first ingress node selects a channel whose packet transmission rate is lower than a second threshold as the another channel. However, if a rate of the another channel also does not meet a rate requirement of the first packet flow, the idle channel needs to be allocated to the first packet flow as the another channel….Once the first ingress node allocates the another channel identifier to the first packet flow, the first ingress node allocates a sequence number to each of a plurality of newly received packets included in the first packet flow, and each sequence number is used to indicate a sequence in which a corresponding packet enters the another channel. (¶ 135, 136)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (101 Analysis: Step 1). Even if the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (101 Analysis: Step 2a(Prong 1), and if so, Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. (101 Analysis: Step 2a (Prong 2). If additional elements does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception, claim still requires an evaluation of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. If the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (there is an inventive concept in the claim), the claim is eligible. If the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim), the claim is ineligible. (101 Analysis: Step 2b).
The 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter: a) Mathematical concepts b) Certain methods of organizing human activity and c) Mental processes
Analysis
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method, and claim 11 is directed to a machine.
Step 2a.1– Identifying an Abstract Idea
The claims recite the steps of “storing confidential information … sending the confidential information …. sending… prompt information… and combining… currencies… into one digital currency” The recited limitations fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, specifically, fundamental economic principles for mitigating risk and currency conversion. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
See MPEP 2106.
Step 2a.2 – Identifying a Practical Application
The claim does not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, even in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment do not amount to practical applications. The claim in directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b
The claim limitations recite “storing confidential information … and sending the confidential information ….” are not additional elements and they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. This is also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible.
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of a fundamental economic practice as performed by a generic computer. The claims do not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a network, and/or merely uses a network as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment.
Dependent claims 2, and 12 discuss functions in more descriptive detail of the steps geared toward the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
Claims 3 and 13 provide descriptive language surrounding the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Therefore, based on case law precedent, the claims are claiming subject matter similar to concepts already identified by the courts as dealing with abstract ideas. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561, U.S. 593, 611 (2010)).
The claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to another technology or technical filed; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 USC 101 based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 12-13 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal et al. (US 20210004800) (“Aggarwal”), and further in view of Wang (US 20210218688) (“Wang”).
Regarding claims 1, and 11, Aggarwal discloses storing confidential information related to a digital currency; and (Abstract; ¶ 29, 36-42, 51)
Aggarwal -a plurality of payment modes and a first authentication parameter are stored in the electronic chip... The user adds payment modes to the electronic chip by electronically storing the details of the payment modes in the electronic chip. Examples of the payment modes may include transaction cards and/or digital wallets. The user further stores one or more sample authentication parameters (e.g., a fingerprint, a retina scan, a faceprint, a voiceprint, or the like) of the user in the electronic chip…Examples of the payment modes may include transaction cards or digital wallets. For example, details of a transaction card may include a unique card number, an expiry date, a card security code, and a card type of the transaction card. Details of a digital wallet may include a wallet ID, a wallet number, or the like, of the digital wallet. The electronic chip 102 stores the sample authentication parameters and the details of the payment modes therein in an encrypted format. (Abstract; ¶ 29, 42)
when an information request sent by an application or a terminal is received, sending the confidential information to the application or the terminal according to the information request, wherein the application or the terminal is an application or a terminal that uses the digital currency for transaction (Abstract; ¶ 29-49, 53, 69-72, 80, 90, 91, 118)
Aggarwal - The electronic chip receives an authentication request including a second authentication parameter from a terminal device when the transaction is initiated at the terminal device…The electronic chip compares the first and second authentication parameters, and communicates an authentication response including one or more details of a first payment mode of the plurality of payment modes to the terminal device based on a match between the first authentication parameter and the second authentication parameter…When the authentication is successful, the authentication response includes details of one or more payment modes of the plurality of payment modes that are added to the electronic chip. (Abstract; ¶ 29)
Aggarwal does not disclose when an available storage space of the security chip is less than a preset threshold, sending prompt information about updating the digital currency online and/or limiting a transaction frequency to the application or the terminal; when sending the prompt information about updating the digital currency online to the application or the terminal, combining a plurality of digital currencies into one digital currency of a corresponding denomination according to the plurality of digital currencies stored in the security chip and corresponding transaction information
Wang teaches when an available storage space of the security chip is less than a preset threshold, sending prompt information about updating the digital data online and/or limiting a transaction frequency to the application or the terminal; (Abstract; ¶ 33-39, 135-140; claim 11)
Wang– the channel allocation module is specifically configured to determine, for the first packet flow, an identifier of a channel whose rate is lower than a second threshold as the another channel identifier…sending a first message to notify the first chip to stop sending a tenth packet to a third chip of the egress node when a quantity of available storage resources corresponding to the third chip is less than a first threshold, wherein the third chip receives the updated first packet flow in a per-packet load sharing manner (¶ 33; claim 11)
when sending the prompt information about updating the digital data online to the application or the terminal, combining a plurality of digital data into one digital data of a corresponding denomination according to the plurality of digital data stored in the security chip and corresponding transaction information (Abstract; ¶ 33-39, 135-140; claim 11).
Claim Interpretation – According to the disclosure (¶ 515), “For example, a digital currency A with the denomination being 10, a digital currency B with the denomination being 20, and a digital currency C with the denomination being 30 are stored in the security chip. When online update is performed, the three digital currencies may be updated into one digital currency with the denomination being 60 by means of the currency management apparatus corresponding to the application or the terminal. ”
Wang– In this case, the another channel identifier needs to be allocated to the first packet flow. Usually, the first ingress node selects a channel whose packet transmission rate is lower than a second threshold as the another channel. However, if a rate of the another channel also does not meet a rate requirement of the first packet flow, the idle channel needs to be allocated to the first packet flow as the another channel….Once the first ingress node allocates the another channel identifier to the first packet flow, the first ingress node allocates a sequence number to each of a plurality of newly received packets included in the first packet flow, and each sequence number is used to indicate a sequence in which a corresponding packet enters the another channel. (¶ 135, 136)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Aggarwal and Wang in order to efficiently execute load balancing with the use of chips (Wang; ¶ 4-7).
Regarding claims 2, and 12, Aggarwal discloses wherein storing the confidential information related to the digital currency comprises: determining a storage state of the confidential information according to a confidentiality level of the confidential information; and storing the confidential information according to the storage state, wherein the storage state indicates whether the confidential information is visible to a user (Abstract; ¶ 56-64, 114).
Regarding claims 3, and 13, Aggarwal discloses wherein the confidential information comprises any one or more of the following: a private key and a public key of a first user corresponding to the terminal, a public key of a second user specified by the first user, a public key of a currency management apparatus, a digital currency, identifier information of the digital currency, a transaction frequency threshold of the digital currency, an offline duration threshold of the digital currency, a payment key of the first user, a payment limit of the first user, state information of the application, identifier information of the application, and identifier information of the terminal (Abstract; ¶ 29, 36-38, 48, 57, 72).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lu et al., (US 11868985) teaches chip with stored transaction information.
Wang et al. (US 20180137283) teaches chip with triggers
Wingen (US 20020184413) (“Wingen”) teaches chip storage triggers and thresholds.
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 ILSE I IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, NEHA H PATEL can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/ILSE I IMMANUEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699