DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 12/19/2023 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered.
The following is a non-final Office Action on the Merits in response to Applicant’s submission.
a. Claims 1, 9, 17 are amended
b. Claims 2, 10, 18, 20 are cancelled
c. Claims 21-24 are new
Overall, Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19, 21-24 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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, 3-9, 11-17, 19, 21-24 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1, 3-8, 21-24 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 9, 11-16 are directed to a system, and claims 17, 19 are directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 9, 17) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 9, 17) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A method for crypto token management:
[B] receiving a first amount of fiat to be associated with a user profile at a custodial token platform;
[C] displaying, at a graphical user interface of the custodial token platform, a user interface page that displays a fiat amount corresponding to the first amount, a stablecoin amount corresponding to a second amount of stablecoin associated with the user profile, and a selectable option to convert fiat amounts associated with the user profile to stablecoin;
[D] receiving, at the custodial token platform, via the graphical user interface, a user input indicating selection of the selectable option;
[E] converting, after receiving the user input, the fiat amount to the stablecoin;
[F] displaying, at the graphical user interface, an updated user interface page that displays the stablecoin amount without displaying the fiat amount, wherein the stablecoin amount is updated to include the converted fiat amount.
[G] receiving, while the selectable option is selected, a third amount of fiat to be associated with the user profile at the custodial token platform;
[H] converting, automatically based at least in part on the selectable option being selected, the third amount of fiat to the stablecoin; and
[I] displaying, at the graphical user interface, the stablecoin amount that is updated to include the converted third amount of fiat.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 9, 16) recites: enabling an amount ([D]); converting the amount to digital currency ([E]); displaying the digital currency amount, without displaying the fiat amount ([F]), receiving and converting a third amount of stablecoin ([G], [H]) and displaying the updated stablecoin amount ([I]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount and displaying the updated amount”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce) which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 9, 17) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “custodian token platform,” “at a graphical user interface of the custodial token platform,” and “at the custodial token platform via the graphical user interface” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the qualifiers “wherein the stablecoin amount is updated to include the converted fiat amount”; and “wherein displaying the stablecoin amount that is updated to include the converted fiat amount is based at least in part on broadcasting the message” are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: receiving an amount of fiat currency ([B]), displaying a corresponding fiat amount ([C]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea.
Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 9, 18) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 9, 18) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 9, 18 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 3, which is representative of dependent claims 11, 19, recites:
[A] broadcasting a message that is configured to call a minting contract for the stablecoin, the minting contract configured to mint an amount of the stablecoin equal to the fiat amount associated with the user profile, wherein displaying the stablecoin amount that is updated to include the converted fiat amount is based at least in part on broadcasting the message.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”).
Therefore, dependent claim 3 (which is representative of dependent claims 11, 19) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 5, which is representative of dependent claims 13, recites:
[A] receiving at the custodial token platform, a second input to disable the single amount setting.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”).
Therefore, dependent claim 5 (which is representative of dependent claims 13) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 6, which is representative of dependent claims 14, recites:
[A] displaying, based at least in part on receiving the second input and at a user interface of the custodial token platform, a fiat amount and a stablecoin amount associated with the user profile.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea, Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”).
Therefore, dependent claim 6 (which is representative of dependent claims 14) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 8, which is representative of dependent claims 16, recites:
[A] displaying, at the user graphical interface, an option to enable the single amount setting based at least in part on receiving the first amount of fiat; and
[B] receiving, based at least in part on displaying the option to enable the single amount setting, the input.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”).
Therefore, dependent claim 8 (which is representative of dependent claims 16) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 22 recites:
[A] displaying, at the graphical user interface, one or more benefits associated with the selectable option, a rate of return associated with the stablecoin or both based at least in part on the first amount of the fiat satisfying a threshold.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”).
Therefore, dependent claim 22 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 23 recites:
[A] displaying, at the graphical user interface, an option to disable the single amount setting; and
[B] receiving, based at least in part on displaying the option to disable the single amount setting, the user input.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”).
Therefore, dependent claim 23 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 4, 7, which are representative of dependent claims 12, 15, respectively, and dependent claims 21, 24 recite:
wherein the message is configured to cause the converted fiat amount to be associated with a blockchain address associated with the user profile.
wherein the fiat amount is zero.
wherein the fiat amount is associated with a first wallet and the stablecoin amount is associated with a second wallet, and
wherein the first wallet has reduced functionality as compared to the second wallet.
wherein converting the fiat amount to the stablecoin is performed internally by the custodial token platform without broadcasting an on-chain transaction to a blockchain network.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the message configuration, the fiat currency amount – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 4, 7 (which are representative of dependent claims 12, 15, 20, respectively) are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19, 21-24 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Written Description (New Matter)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
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.
The following is a quotation of the relevant portion of 35 U.S.C. §132(a):
No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for failing to comply with the written description requirement. MPEP 2163.06 stipulates – If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) – written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 21 has been amended by Applicant to include the limitation “wherein the fiat amount is associated with a first wallet and the stablecoin amount is associated with a second wallet”. The limitation has no support in the specification, drawings or initial set of claims. ss
As per claim 21 Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “wherein the fiat amount is associated with a first wallet and the stablecoin amount is associated with a second wallet” in the application as filed, the drawings or the initial set of claims.
The specification discloses at [0011] stablecoin wallet and fiat wallet, however, it does not disclose first wallet and second wallet.
The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 difference 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 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 establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plenet de Badts de Cugnac (US 11,704,732) (herein after Plenet), in view of Mawson et al (US 2023/0186285), in further view of Saraf et al (US 2023/0251353).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, 17: Plenet discloses: A method for crypto token management, comprising:
receiving a first amount of fiat to be associated with a user profile at a custodial token platform; {see at least fig2, rc290, (38)/[5:45-51] lending fund allocated to borrower (reads on first amount); fig3, rc310, (39)/[5:51-56] transferred to borrower (reads on user profile at custodian platform}
displaying, at a graphical user interface of the custodial token platform, a user interface page that displays a fiat amount corresponding to the first amount, a stablecoin amount corresponding to a second amount of stablecoin associated with the user profile, … {see at least fig2, rc270, (36)/[5:38-42] display with the amount; (41)/[5:62-65] multiple lenders (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on second amount); (19)/[3:54-61] convert fiat money into stablecoins; (24)/[3:65-4:10] convert that money into stablecoin currency}
converting, after receiving the user input, the fiat amount to the stablecoin; and {see at least (19)/[3:54-62]; (24)/[4:21-35] convert to stablecoins (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on single amount setting); fig1, rc175, (24)/[ 4:21-35] borrower crypto wallet (reads on converting fiat currency to stablecoin)}
displaying, at the graphical user interface, an updated user interface page that displays the stablecoin amount without displaying the fiat amount, wherein the stablecoin amount is updated to include the converted fiat amount. {see at least fig2, rc270, (36)/[5:38-42] display with the amount; (41)/[5:62-65] multiple lenders (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on second amount)}
receiving, while the selectable option is selected, a third amount of fiat to be associated with the user profile at the custodial token platform; {see at least (19)/[3:54-62]; (24)/[4:21-35] convert to stablecoins (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on single amount setting); fig1, rc175, (24)/[ 4:21-35] borrower crypto wallet (reads on single amount setting); fig3, rc330, (41)/[5:61-65] multiple lenders (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on third amount }
displaying, at the graphical user interface, the stablecoin amount that is updated to include the converted third amount of fiat. {see at least fig2, rc270, (36)/[5:38-42] display with the amount; (41)/[5:62-65] multiple lenders (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on second amount)}
Plenet does not disclose, however, Mawson discloses:
receiving, at the custodial token platform, via the graphical user interface, a user input indicating selection of the selectable option; {see at least fig3C, [0083] user indicates the amount}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Plenet to include the elements of Mawson. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide user with the option to make a choice. In the instant case, Plenet evidently discloses generating a single balance from diverse currencies. Mawson is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of user input in the same or similar context. Since both generating a single balance from diverse currencies, as well as user input are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Plenet, as well as Mawson would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Plenet / Mawson
Plenet, Mawson does not disclose, however, Saraf discloses:
… and a selectable option to convert fiat amounts associated with the user profile to stablecoin; {see at least [0067]-[0068] two options (reads selectable option) to convert cryptocurrency to fiat}
converting, automatically based at least in part on the selectable option being selected, the third amount of fiat to the stablecoin; and {see at least [0067]-[0068] two options (reads selectable option) to convert cryptocurrency to fiat}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Plenet, Mawson to include the elements of Saraf. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide user with the option to make a choice. In the instant case, Plenet evidently discloses generating a single balance from diverse currencies. Saraf is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of user selecting an option in the same or similar context. Since both generating a single balance from diverse currencies, as well as user selecting an option are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Plenet, as well as Saraf would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Plenet, Mawson / Saraf.
Regarding Claims 3, 11, 19: Plenet, Mawson, Saraf discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9, 17. Plenet further discloses: wherein converting the fiat amount to the stablecoin comprises:
broadcasting a message that is configured to call a minting contract for the stablecoin, the minting contract configured to mint an amount of the stablecoin equal to the fiat amount associated with the user profile, wherein displaying the stablecoin amount that is updated to include the converted fiat amount is based at least in part on broadcasting the message. {see at least (19)/[3:54-62]; (24)/[4:21-35] convert to stablecoins (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on single amount setting); fig1, rc175, (24)/[ 4:21-35] borrower crypto wallet (reads on single amount setting). The claim element “the minting contract configured to mint an amount of the stablecoin equal to the fiat amount associated with the user profile” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
Regarding Claims 4, 12: Plenet, Mawson, Saraf discloses the limitations of Claims 3, 11. Plenet further discloses:
wherein the message is configured to cause the converted fiat amount to be associated with a blockchain address associated with the user profile. {see at least fig1, rc175, (24)/[ 4:21-35] borrower wallet (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on user profile); fig3, rc310, (39)/[5:51-56] transferred to borrower wallet (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on blockchain address associated with user profile)}
Regarding Claims 5, 13: Plenet, Mawson, Saraf discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9, 17. Mawson further discloses:
receiving at the custodial token platform, a second user input to disable a single amount setting. {see at least fig3A, rc310, rc340, [0080] cash balance (reads on fiat currency, stablecoin (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on single amount setting disabled, because multiple amounts are shown)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Plenet Mawson, Saraf to include additional elements of Mawson. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide more account details (i.e. individual amounts). In the instant case, Plenet, Mawson, Saraf evidently discloses generate a single balance from diverse currencies. Mawson is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of displaying in multiple amounts in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 6, 14: Plenet Mawson discloses the limitations of Claims 5, 13. Mawson further discloses:
displaying, based at least in part on receiving the second user input and at the graphical user interface of the custodial token platform, a fiat amount and a stablecoin amount associated with the user profile. {see at least fig3A, rc310, rc340, [0080] cash balance (reads on fiat currency, stablecoin)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Plenet, Mawson, Saraf to include additional elements of Mawson. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide more account details (i.e. individual amounts). In the instant case, Plenet, Mawson, Saraf evidently discloses generate a single balance from diverse currencies. Mawson is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of displaying separate amounts in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 7, 15: Plenet, Mawson, Saraf discloses the limitations of Claims 6, 14. Mawson further discloses:
wherein the fiat amount is zero. {see at least [0048] cash out the balance (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, (MPEP 2111), reads on fiat amount is zero)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Plenet Mawson, Saraf to include additional elements of Mawson. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to reveal that the fiat balance has reached zero. In the instant case, Plenet Mawson, Saraf evidently discloses generate a single balance from diverse currencies. Mawson is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of a fiat amount of zero in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 8, 16: Plenet, Mawson, Saraf discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9, 17. Mawson further discloses: wherein receiving the user input indicating selection of the selectable option setting comprises:
displaying, at the graphical user interface, an option to enable a single amount setting based at least in part on receiving the first amount of fiat; and {see at least fig5, rc520, [0094] single amount setting; [0033] synthetic balance in USD (reads on fiat currency)}
receiving, based at least in part on displaying the option to enable the single amount setting, the user input. {see at least fig5, rc520, [0094] single amount setting; [0033] synthetic balance in USD (reads on fiat currency)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Plenet, Mawson, Saraf to include additional elements of Mawson One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide total account details (i.e. combined amounts) only. In the instant case, Plenet, Mawson, Saraf evidently discloses generate a single balance from diverse currencies. Mawson is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of displaying single amounts in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 21: Plenet, Mawson, Saraf discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Plenet further discloses:
wherein the fiat amount is associated with a first wallet and the stablecoin amount is associated with a second wallet, and wherein the first wallet has reduced functionality as compared to the second wallet. {see at least (24)/[4:21-34], fig1, rc175, rc180, borrower crypto wallet, lender crypto wallet}
Regarding Claim 22: Plenet, Mawson, Saraf discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Plenet further discloses:
displaying, at the graphical user interface, one or more benefits associated with the selectable option, a rate of return associated with the stablecoin or both based at least in part on the first amount of the fiat satisfying a threshold. {see at least fig2, rc210, rc250, (30)-(35)/[5:1-37]]interest rate (reads on rate of return)}
Regarding Claim 23: Plenet, Mawson, Saraf discloses the limitations of Claim 5. Saraf further discloses: wherein receiving the second user input to disable the single amount setting comprises:
displaying, at the graphical user interface, an option to disable the single amount setting; and {see at least fig3, , rc342, rc344, [0069] displaying and receiving input from user[0067]-[0068] two options (reads selectable option) to convert cryptocurrency to fiat}
receiving, based at least in part on displaying the option to disable the single amount setting, the user input. {see at least [0067]-[0068] merchant elects … two options (reads selectable option) to convert cryptocurrency to fiat}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Plenet, Mawson, Saraf to include additional elements of Saraf. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide user with a means to interact with the system. In the instant case, Plenet, Mawson, Saraf evidently discloses generate a single balance from diverse currencies. Saraf is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of a user input/output display in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 24: Plenet, Mawson, Saraf discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Plenet further discloses:
wherein converting the fiat amount to the stablecoin is performed internally by the custodial token platform without broadcasting an on-chain transaction to a blockchain network. {see at least fig1, rc130, rc190, (24)/[4:21-39} converting fiat money to stablecoin at the backend of the system (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on conversion that is performed internally by a computer)}
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190139033 A1 Ricotta; Frank et al. METHOD FOR REAL-TIME CONVERSION OF CRYPTOCURRENCY TO CASH AND OTHER FORMS OF VALUE AT THE POINT OF USE - Systems and methods move money from a crypto currency to a fiat currency in real-time using a mobile wallet or debit card to allow a customer to use the funds instantly. The process for such movement of money is secured using distributed ledger technology and smart contract services. The funds are available to the customer in real-time and the customer is able to use those funds substantially anywhere credit cards are accepted and at substantially any automatic teller machine (ATM). A multi-layered distributed ledger and reconciliation method may be used as a transaction settlement system. The multi-tiered authentication and distributed identification method may be used to prevent fraud and theft. A retail transactional value of a portfolio of digital currencies may be determined by taking into account asset market liquidity and volatility.
US 20200074552 A1 Shier; Charles Louis et al. SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SHORT AND LONG TOKENS - A long and short fund that is implemented using a distributed token-based system. A change in an indicator causes assets to be moved from one fund to the other. Investors may redeem their fund units at any time, including at the conclusion of the fund when one of the funds reaches zero value. A cryptographic whitelist may be used to ensure that only validated investors hold or redeem units of the funds. Offering memorandum and auditing documentation may be cryptographically attached to the token.
US 20210042799 A1 Adams; Chris et al. SYSTEM FOR EMPOWERING CONSUMERS TO ACHIEVE THEIR DREAMS AND ASPIRATIONS THROUGH SOCIAL NETWORKING WITH AN INTEGRATED DECENTRALIZED MARKETPLACE TO FACILITATE THE TRUSTLESS EXCHANGE OF SERVICES, AND CROWDFUNDING CAPABILITIES - A computer implemented method of communicating between devices is disclosed. The computer implemented method includes: transmitting at least one dream request to a specialized program on a dreamr server; receiving the at least one dream request at the dreamr server; determining if the at least one dream request invites a first group of registered users to co-dream with the at least one dream request; forming a supportive network if the at least one dream request invites the first group of registered users; determining if the supportive network invites a second group of registered users to co-dream; initiating dreamweaving between the supportive network and the second group of registered users if the supportive network invites the second group of registered users to co-dream and become a supernetwork; and enabling the supernetwork and the second group of registered users to become monetized, wherein goods and services of the supernetwork and the second group of registered users are marketed at a marketplace.
US 20230065042 A1 LI; Tiffany et al. BLOCKCHAIN MARKETPLACE FOR DEBT CAPITAL - A marketplace for trading bonds on the block chain includes a bond token smart contract that tokenizes the bond for buying/selling using a stablecoin. Each bond generates a corresponding marketplace smart contract. A whitelist smart contract is used to provide permissions for trading bonds on the block chain.
US 20210118052 A1 Walser; Joachim Paul CRYPTOCURRENCY CASH GATEWAY - The present invention concerns a cryptocurrency-cash gateway, comprising a wallet interface (403) for communicating over a network with at least one crypto wallet (102) and an EFT gateway interface (404) for communicating over a network with at least one electronic funds transfer, EFT, gateway or financial institution (407), wherein the cryptocurrency-cash gateway is operable to perform a cryptocurrency-to-cash transaction for allowing a user to withdraw cash at an automatic transaction machine, ATM (110), or a point-of-sale, POS, system (110B) by exchanging a corresponding amount of a cryptocurrency from the crypto wallet(s); or conversely allowing the user to deposit cash at an ATM or POS system and exchanging it for a corresponding amount of a cryptocurrency to be deposited in at least one crypto wallet of the user.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “First, however, the features of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 do not recite a method for organizing human activity for at least the reason that the features of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are not related to "commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations)," (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) which is a concept related to "methods of organizing human activity. …" According to the MPEP, "commercial or legal interactions" encompass specific types of human activities.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action does not allege that the claims are directed to “agreements in the form of contracts.”
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The Office Action has not provided any support for the assertion that the features of independent claim 1 relate to "commercial or legal interactions."”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Based on the claim language (receiving, at the custodial token platform, via the graphical user interface, a user input indicating selection of the selectable option; converting, after receiving the user input, the fiat amount to the stablecoin; displaying, at the graphical user interface, an updated user interface page that displays the stablecoin amount without displaying the fiat amount, wherein the stablecoin amount is updated to include the converted fiat amount; receiving, while the selectable option is selected, a third amount of fiat to be associated with the user profile at the custodial token platform; converting, automatically based at least in part on the selectable option being selected, the third amount of fiat to the stablecoin; and displaying, at the graphical user interface, the stablecoin amount that is updated to include the converted third amount of fiat.) and in light of the application specification (“single cash balance”), the claims are directed to converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount and displaying the updated amount
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Moreover, the Office Action has not provided any support for the assertion that the features of independent claim 1 "fall[] under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity," at least because the Office Action does not consider each feature of claim 1 as a whole.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action and considered all the claim elements, both individually and as a whole, as a combination (“Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 9, 18) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.”)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Moreover, the Office Action has not provided any support for the assertion that the features of independent claim 1 "fall[] under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity," at least because the Office Action does not consider each feature of claim 1 as a whole. For example, amended independent claim 1 recites features such as "displaying, at a graphical user interface of the custodial token platform" and "receiving, at the custodial token platform via the graphical user interface, a user input indicating selection of the selectable option."”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action concludes at Step 2A2, among others:
For example, the added elements “custodian token platform,” “at a graphical user interface of the custodial token platform,” and “at the custodial token platform via the graphical user interface” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the qualifiers “wherein the stablecoin amount is updated to include the converted fiat amount”; and “wherein displaying the stablecoin amount that is updated to include the converted fiat amount is based at least in part on broadcasting the message” are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Specifically, the claims are directed to an improvement to a relevant technology (e.g., custodial token platforms), which is recognized as an example of an additional element that integrates the exception into a practical application.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Converting fiat currency into digital currency and vice versa, and displaying the updated amount and displaying the updated amount is pure BUSINESS activity, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional limitations,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Regarding independent claim 1, the features of "displaying, at a graphical user interface of the custodial token platform, ... a selectable option to convert fiat amounts associated with the user profile to stablecoin" and "converting, automatically based at least in part on the selectable option being selected, the third amount of fiat to the stablecoin" improves functionality of custodial token platforms and supports simplified user experience associated with conversion of fiat tokens.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Applicant appears to argue that the claims are patent-eligible because they result in an improvement in the technology field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not clear that the claims are directed to an improvement to an existing technology field. The claims appear directed to an improvement to the functionality of custodial token platforms. The technological improvements identified by the courts in Diehr, Enfish, and Bascom are significantly different than programming a computer to improve custodial token platforms functionality improvement engines (see discussion below). As stated in MPEP § 2106.05(a) "[a]n indication that the claimed invention provides [a technological] improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art." The application disclosure fails to discuss or suggest an improvement to any underlying technical field executing the identified abstract idea. The original disclosure fails to discuss prior art custodial token platforms functionality improvement engines, as claimed by Applicant. In spite of disclosing some perceived advantages which allegedly are brought about by the instant application, the original disclosure fails to discuss prior art custodial token platforms functionality improvement engines. The original disclosure therefore does not disclose, suggest, imply or allude to that the particular custodial token platforms functionality improvement engines structures being claimed are an improvement over prior art systems. The fact that the disclosure failed to identify a technical problem and the fact that the original disclosure fails to disclose, suggest, imply or allude to how or why the claimed arrangement of system elements enables an improvement, suggests that the claimed invention is not directed to this technical improvement. Instead, it appears Applicant has attempted to identify, after the fact, some unsubstantiated benefit of the claimed matter in an effort to exhibit that the claims are directed to a technical improvement. (see MPEP 2106.05(a); (i) specification requirements in regard to the technological improvements (should describe the improvement): McRO v Bandai – specification provides explanation, Affinity Labs – specification does not provide explanation; (ii) claim requirements in regard to the improvements (should recite the improvement): Enfish – claim reflects the improvement, Intellectual Ventures – claim does not reflect the improvement).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Further, amended independent claim 1 includes features that result in significantly more than any alleged judicial exception.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It appears that Applicant refers to Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. Regarding Step 2B, the eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action concludes:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 9, 18) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 9, 18 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits “Thus, any conversion of Plenet is not "based at least in part on the selectable option being selected." Plenet therefore does not teach or suggest "converting, automatically based at least in part on the selectable option being selected, the third amount of fiat to the stablecoin," as recited in amended independent claim 1.”
Examiner has carefully considered. Plenet does not disclose, however, Saraf discloses:
… and a selectable option to convert fiat amounts associated with the user profile to stablecoin; {see at least [0067]-[0068] two options (reads selectable option) to convert cryptocurrency to fiat}
converting, automatically based at least in part on the selectable option being selected, the third amount of fiat to the stablecoin; and {see at least [0067]-[0068] two options (reads selectable option) to convert cryptocurrency to fiat}
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698