DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Acknowledgment
This action is in response to the Patent Application filed on January 10, 2024, and the response to Restriction/Election requirement filed on December 4, 2025. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on December 4, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are hereby pending, from which claims 1-16 are original claims, claims 21-24 are newly added by Applicant, and the withdrawn claims 17-20 have been cancelled by Applicant. Claims 1-16 and 21-24 have been fully examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 establishing a background 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 1-11, 13-16, 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonough (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0083907,) in view of Sinclair (US Patent Publication No. 2013/0290707.)
With respect to claims 1, 10 and 21, McDonough teaches:
transferring, by the sender device, a digital token from a sender wallet address … to a digital-physical address (virtual currency (digital token) is transferred from a client device (sender) to a third party (recipient) via an intermediary SOCOACT (digital-physical address): FIG. 5, [0147]-[0148], [0152], [0178], [0185]-[0186], [0215])
communicating, by the sender device, a request to at least one node in a plurality of nodes of a distributed ledger network, (a transaction request is sent to a blockchain: [0210], [0255], the request includes a signature: [0328])
wherein the request comprises a digital signature of the sender device, and the request involves a transfer of the digital token to a recipient wallet address associated with the recipient device; (a transfer request to wallet address: [0134]-[0138], request including a signature: [0215], [0328], [0333], [0338]-[0339], [0357])
receiving, by the sender device, a confirmation from any node in the plurality of nodes that the transfer of the digital token is approved based at least in part on at least one node in the plurality of nodes authenticating the digital signature, (validity of digital signature is authenticated: [0226], [0453])
receiving, by the recipient device, a confirmation from any node in the plurality of nodes that the transfer of the digital token is approved, (system notifies both parties: [0254], [0331])
wherein the digital token is transferred from the digital-physical address to the recipient wallet address based on the confirmation. ((virtual currency (digital token) is transferred from the SOCOACT (digital-physical address) to the third party (recipient): FIG. 5, [0147]-[0148], [0152], transaction is performed based on verification: [0351]-[0352], [0404])
The examiner notes that a “digital-physical address” is not defined in the claim or in the Specification. Therefore, the term “digital-physical address” is interpreted as an intermediary via which the token is transferred from a source to a destination. McDonough teaches transferring virtual currency (digital token) from a sender to a recipient via a SOCOACT (intermediary.)
McDonough does not explicitly teach; however, Sinclair teaches:
detecting, by a recipient device, a first set of independently accessible data, wherein the first set of independently accessible data corresponds to a physical location of the recipient device; (Alice’s device receives its location data: [235], hashes are created independently: [0239])
receiving, by a sender device, a recipient hash communicated from a recipient device, (receiving anonymized location data (recipient location data) from a mobile device (recipient device): FIG. 1, [0075]-[0076], [0100], the anonymizing process is carried out by hashing (recipient hash) [0113])
wherein the recipient hash is associated with the recipient device, and the recipient device is configured to generate the recipient hash via a hash function based on a first set of independently accessible data corresponding to a physical location of the recipient device; (anonymizing process by generating a hash from physical location of the device: [0131], Alice’s device (recipient device) generates hash of its current location: [0235])
detecting, by the sender device, a second set of independently accessible data, wherein the second set of independently accessible data corresponds to a physical location of the sender device; (Bob’s device receives Bob’s location data: [0236], hashes are created independently: [0239])
generating, by the sender device, a hash value via the hash function and based on the second set of independently accessible data; (Bob’s device (sender device) generates hash of its current location: [0236])
determining, by the sender device, that the hash value corresponds to the recipient hash; (hash values are compared to find a proximity match: [0239]-[0240])
responsive to determining the hash value corresponds to the recipient hash: (if there is proximity match, authentication is complete: [0272])
transferring, by the sender device, a digital token …associated with the sender device to a digital-physical address; (the service sends Bob’s public key (digital token of the sender) to Alice’s device)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the anonymized geospatial reference, as taught by Sinclair, into the point-to-point transaction guide of McDonough in order to verify device proximity while protecting privacy by not revealing the physical locations. (Sinclair: Abstract, [0025]-[0026], [0105])
With respect to claim 2, McDonough and Sinclair teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, McDonough teaches:
receiving, by the sender device and from the recipient device, the recipient wallet address, wherein the request identifies the recipient wallet address. (authentication/transaction request includes wallet identifier: [0666], [1168], [1205])
With respect to claim 3, 11 and 22, McDonough and Sinclair teach the limitations of claims 2, 10 and 21.
Moreover, McDonough teaches:
wherein at least one of the recipient hash and the recipient wallet address is received via at least one of a QR code, a wireless signal, an NFC signal, or a RFID signal communicated from the recipient device. ([0094], [0096], [0130], [0159], [0179])
With respect to claim 4, McDonough and Sinclair teach the limitations of claim 2.
Moreover, McDonough teaches:
wherein the sender device generates the digital signature via a private key of a private key/public key pair and the at least one node authenticates the digital signature via a public key of the private key/public key pair. (digitally signing using private key: [0076], [0226], verifying signature using public key: [0154], [0166])
With respect to claim 5, 6, 13 and 24, McDonough and Sinclair teach the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 21.
Moreover, McDonough teaches a hash algorithm (hash function) that generates hash using pseudo-randomized numbers (i.e., salting.)
receiving, by the sender device, the public key communicated from the recipient device. ([0166])
In addition, Sinclair teaches:
generating the hash value via the hash function based on the second set of independently accessible data involves salting the hash function with a public key and the second set of independently accessible data. (hashing using a salt value that is based on public key: [0102], [0113], [0131]-[0132], [0392])
receiving, by the sender device, the public key communicated from the recipient device. ([0238]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the anonymized geospatial reference, as taught by Sinclair, into the point-to-point transaction guide of McDonough in order to verify device proximity while protecting privacy by not revealing the physical locations. (Sinclair: Abstract, [0025]-[0026], [0105])
With respect to claims 7 and 14, McDonough and Sinclair teach the limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Moreover, McDonough teaches:
wherein the second set of independently accessible data comprises at least one of optical signals, GPS signals, Wi-Fi signals, Bluetooth signals, or radio tower signals. (Bluetooth, NFC, Wi-Fi environment: [0091]-[0096], [0098], [0179]-[0180])
In addition, Sinclair teaches:
wherein the second set of independently accessible data comprises at least one of optical signals, GPS signals, Wi-Fi signals, Bluetooth signals, or radio tower signals. (using GPS signals, Wi-Fi___33, cell tower data, for physical location data: [0082], [0088])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the anonymized geospatial reference, as taught by Sinclair, into the point-to-point transaction guide of McDonough in order to verify device proximity while protecting privacy by not revealing the physical locations. (Sinclair: Abstract, [0025]-[0026], [0105])
With respect to claims 8 and 15, McDonough and Sinclair teach the limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Moreover, McDonough teaches:
wherein the digital-physical address is associated with the sender device. (virtual currency (digital token) is transferred from a client device (sender) to a third party (recipient) via an intermediary SOCOACT (digital-physical address associated with the client device): FIG. 5, [0147]-[0148], [0152])
The examiner notes that a “digital-physical address” is not defined in the claim or in the Specification. Therefore, the term “digital-physical address” is interpreted as an intermediary via which the token is transferred from a source to a destination. In addition, the “digital-physical address associated with the sender device” is interpreted as being in connection/communication with the sender device. McDonough teaches transferring virtual currency (digital token) from a sender to a recipient via a SOCOACT (intermediary,) which is in communication to both the sender and the recipient.
With respect to claims 9 and 16, McDonough and Sinclair teach the limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Moreover, McDonough teaches:
wherein the digital-physical address is associated with the recipient device. (virtual currency (digital token) is transferred from a client device (sender) to a third party (recipient) via an intermediary SOCOACT (digital-physical address associated with the third-party): FIG. 5, [0147]-[0148], [0152])
The examiner notes that a “digital-physical address” is not defined in the claim or in the Specification. Therefore, the term “digital-physical address” is interpreted as an intermediary via which the token is transferred from a source to a destination. In addition, the “digital-physical address associated with the recipient device” is interpreted as being in connection/communication with the recipient device. McDonough teaches transferring virtual currency (digital token) from a sender to a recipient via a SOCOACT (intermediary,) which is in communication to both the sender and the recipient.
Claims 12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonough, in view of Sinclair, further in view of Lakshmanan (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0310436.)
With respect to claims 12 and 23, McDonough and Sinclair teach the limitations of claims 10 and 21.
McDonough and Sinclair do not explicitly teach; however, Lakshmanan teaches:
wherein generating the recipient hash via the hash function based on the first set of independently accessible data involves salting the hash function with a private key and the first set of independently accessible data. (hash is created using a salt: [0029] salting suing private key: [0046])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the secure storage of transaction data by salting the private key, as taught by Lakshmanan, into the digital-currency transfer system of McDonough and Sinclair, in order to ensure secure payment by securely storing the payment data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMA ASGARI whose telephone number is (571)272-2037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, 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.
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.
/SIMA ASGARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698