FINAL REJECTION
Introduction
This Office action is responsive to the communications filed September 11, 2025. Claims 1-3, 11-14, and 19 were amended. Claims 4 and 15 canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended the specification, thereby overcoming the objection to the drawings.
Applicant has amended the abstract, thereby overcoming the objection.
Applicant has amended the specification to correct the typographical error relating to stablecoin. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant did not correct the typographically error at page 12 (paragraph [0040]) of the specification. Therefore, the objection is maintained.
Applicant has amended the claims, thereby overcoming the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20.
As per the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant asserts that “the claims do not recite features related to the type of ‘interactions between entities’ and ‘fundamental economic practice’ which the courts classify as a concept related to ‘methods of organizing human activity.” Additionally, Applicants states that “the claims are directed to an improvement to a relevant technology” as it “increase flexibility for fulfilling token payments, increase adaptability for different types of tokens, and facilitate easy assessment of the impact on a requestee’s account based on different currencies by allowing flexible exchange of different tokens between users based on retrieved and displayed conversion rates.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. For instance, claim 1 recites “a method for implementation peer-to-peer token requests” that comprises receiving a request for transfer of a first amount and transmitting a message that initiates a payment…that transfers the second amount of the second token from the requestee and transfers the first amount of the first token to the requestor based at least in part on the current conversion ratio. Other claims recite similar language; hence, the claims relate to fundamental economic practice (e.g. transferring funds) and business relations.
Additionally, the particulars/algorithm to improve the technology is not described in the claims or specification.
Applicant has amended the claims, thereby overcoming the 35 USC 103 rejection of the claims.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. The specification recites “mount” instead of “amount” at paragraph [0040].
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-3, 5-11 are directed to a method. Claims 11-14, 17, and 18 are directed to an apparatus. Claims 19 and 20 are directed to a computer-readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
For example, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of transmitting a message that initiates a payment. The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts related to fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to transmitting a message that initiates a payment. More specifically, the following the bolded claim elements recite additional elements while the other claim elements recite the abstract idea. according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method for implementing peer-to-peer token requests, comprising: receiving, at user device of a requestee and from a requestor, a request for transfer of a first amount of a first token to the requestor; displaying, at a blockchain address application associated with the requestee after receiving the request, respective indications of one or more second tokens in the blockchain address application, wherein the one or more second tokens are different than the first token; receiving user input comprising a selection of a second token of the one or more second tokens; transmitting, based at least in part on receiving the user input, a request for a current conversion ratio between the second token and the first token;
receiving an indication of the current conversion ratio;
displaying, in the blockchain address application associated with the requestee and after receiving the selection of the second token, a second amount of the second token that corresponds to the first amount of the first token, wherein the second amount is based at least in part on the current conversion ratio between the second token and the first token; and
transmitting, based at least in part on displaying the second amount of the second token and to a server, a message that initiates a payment, wherein the message requests the server to generate a payment request that transfers the second amount of thetoken from the requestee and transfers the first amount of the first token to the requestor based at least in part on the current conversion ratio.
Independent claims 12 and 19 recite similar language.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the tokens, server, and blockchain address application are merely used as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of transmitting a message that initiates a payment. Viewed as a whole, the use of tokens, server, and blockchain address application as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer or computer networks performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of the tokens, server, and blockchain address application to perform the steps amounts to no more than using generic hardware or software to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of transmitting a message that initiates a payment. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of transmitting a message that initiates a payment. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. 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 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea such as displaying, in response to transmitting, a notification indicating the transfer of the second amount of the second token.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697