DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the claim amendments filed on February 20, 2026.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-15 and 18-25 are pending.
Claims 4-5, 12, 16 and 17 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-15 and 18-25 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues, see Applicant’s Arguments pages 7-10.
Applicant Argues: Although Applicant maintains that Applicant's claimed subject matter does not recite a judicial exception, even if, for the sake of argument, Applicant's claimed subject matter were to recite a judicial exception, Applicant submits that the claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Under the approach endorsed in Ex parte Desjardins (Appeal 2024-0005 67) (Decision), for technological improvements in software, eligibility determination should turn on whether "the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea" as established in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In the Decision, the Director's panel criticized the PTAB for failing to recognize how additional elements may integrate with the algorithmic portion to yield a practical application and emphasized the need to assess claims at a level of specificity rather than collapsing them into an abstract idea.
The Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees. As a preliminary matter, the Examiner follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”) which is a synthesis of the case law of Alice and its progeny. Additionally, the reasoning for this rejection is the same as was laid out in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action, dated 12/31/2025 (hereinafter, “Office Action”). As indicated in the Office Action, the claims recite an abstract idea of processing a transaction and categorized as a part of organizing human activity.
While Applicant has amended the claim to recite additional subject matter, for example, the amended claim limitation recites: provide a notification to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal indicating that the transaction has been approved, further describe the abstract idea of processing a transaction. Additionally, the system limitations, e.g., a processor and memory do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Moreover, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims are first analyzed in the absence of technology to determine if it recites an abstract idea. The additional limitations of technology are then considered to determine if it restricts the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, and as discussed in the 2019 PEG, it is determined that the additional limitations of technology do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that the recited features in the limitations: provide a notification to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal indicating that the transaction has been approved are simply making use of a computer and the computer limitations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea as discussed below under Step 2A-Prong 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Hence, Examiner has also considered each and every arguments under Step 2A-Prong 1 and concludes that these arguments are not persuasive. For example, under Step 2A-Prong 1, Examiner considers each and every limitation to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. In this case, it is determined that the claim recites an abstract idea and the additional limitations of a computer device does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The recited steps, as amended, are abstract in nature as there are no technical/technology improvements as a result of these steps. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by providing technical/technology improvements are considered under Step 2A-Prong 2. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
Applicant further argues that, Applicant's claimed subject matter addresses a specific technological problem in the field of cryptocurrency transfers by mitigating blockchain lag associated with cryptocurrency transfers. This lag is inherent to blockchain transfers, such as Bitcoin, since blocks are not added to the blockchain immediately. Rather, they are only added when a cryptographic puzzle is solved. Such lag makes it impractical to use such transfers in situations where a transfer must be conducted in a short period of time, such as in a point-of-sale context. The Applicant's claimed subject matter provides a solution to this technological problem while still allowing use of a cryptocurrency transfer. The fact that there is a lag associated with adding blocks to the blockchain is inherently a technological problem. Paragraphs [0002] - [0003] of the specification, reproduced below, describe this existing technological problem.
The Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees. Claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. Claims are directed to processing a transaction. The claims recite “receive transaction data associated with a transaction…; obtain transfer credentials associated with a value transfer card; send a request for a pre-authorization; provide a notification to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal indicating that the transaction has been approved; initiate a timer; monitor the blockchain address by querying a blockchain network for the blockchain address and the transaction identifier continuously during a time period associated with the timer for receipt of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction; and release at least a portion of the pre-authorization hold.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that there is no improved technology in simply, receive transaction data associated with a transaction…; obtain transfer credentials associated with a value transfer card; send a request for a pre-authorization; provide a notification to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal indicating that the transaction has been approved; initiate a timer; monitor the blockchain address by querying a blockchain network for the blockchain address and the transaction identifier continuously during a time period associated with the timer for receipt of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction; and release at least a portion of the pre-authorization hold. The disclosed invention simply cannot be equated to improvement to technological practices or computers. There is no technical improvement at all. Instead, Applicant recites, receive transaction data associated with a transaction…; obtain transfer credentials associated with a value transfer card; send a request for a pre-authorization; provide a notification to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal indicating that the transaction has been approved; initiate a timer; monitor the blockchain address by querying a blockchain network for the blockchain address and the transaction identifier continuously during a time period associated with the timer for receipt of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction; and release at least a portion of the pre-authorization hold. The recited features in the limitations do not result in computer functionality or technical improvement.
Additionally, specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems. Applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
The claims also fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to the 2019 PEG, the additional claim elements are considered when determining whether the claim recites a practical application, such as a technological improvement, of the abstract idea. Therefore, this analysis is the same as the Office Action.
The claims further fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. According to the 2019 PEG, the additional elements, when considered individually and as a combination, are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted in the Office Action, the additional elements serve to implement the abstract idea in a computing environment.
Therefore, the claims limitations do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See detail rejection below. Accordingly, this ground of rejection is maintained.
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-15 and 18-25 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection initiated by applicant’s amendment to the claims.
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, 6-11, 13-15 and 18-25 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, 6-12 and 21 22 are directed to a system comprising a memory and a processor, claims 13-15, 18-19 and 23-24 are directed to a method, and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claims recite an abstract idea of processing a transaction. Specifically, the claims recite “receive transaction data associated with a transaction…; obtain transfer credentials associated with a value transfer card; send a request for a pre-authorization; provide a notification to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal indicating that the transaction has been approved; initiate a timer; monitor the blockchain address by querying a blockchain network for the blockchain address and the transaction identifier continuously during a time period associated with the timer for receipt of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction; and release at least a portion of the pre-authorization hold”, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(a)) because it describes a process for carrying out a commercial interaction between parties that involves communicating data needed to complete a transaction to the parties. Additionally, a processor and memory do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04). (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
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(a or d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as a processor and memory merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the processor and memory perform(s) the steps or functions of “receive transaction data associated with a transaction…; obtain transfer credentials associated with a value transfer card; send a request for a pre-authorization; provide a notification to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal indicating that the transaction has been approved; initiate a timer; monitor the blockchain address by querying a blockchain network for the blockchain address and the transaction identifier continuously during a time period associated with the timer for receipt of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction; and release at least a portion of the pre-authorization hold.” The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), 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. Thus, claims 1, 13 and 20 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
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 using a processor and memory to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of processing a transaction. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the processor and memory perform(s) the steps or functions of “receive transaction data associated with a transaction…; obtain transfer credentials associated with a value transfer card; send a request for a pre-authorization; provide a notification to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal indicating that the transaction has been approved; initiate a timer; monitor the blockchain address by querying a blockchain network for the blockchain address and the transaction identifier continuously during a time period associated with the timer for receipt of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction; and release at least a portion of the pre-authorization hold.” These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of processing a transaction. 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(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding dependent claims
Claims 2 and 14 recite: wherein the system is further caused to: when the cryptocurrency is not received prior to the expiration of the time period associated with the timer: settle the pre-authorization hold.
Claims 3 and 15 recite: wherein the request for the pre-authorization hold includes a flag indicating an acceptability of one or more forms of cryptocurrency.
Claims 6 and 18 recite: wherein the request for the pre-authorization hold includes an indication of a commensurate amount of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction amount.
Claims 7 and 19 recite: wherein, prior to initiating the timer, the processor is further configured to: generate a barcode representing the blockchain address and a transaction identifier.
Claim 8 recites: wherein prior to releasing at least the portion of the pre-authorization hold, the processor is further configured to: determine that the received cryptocurrency is equal to a commensurate amount of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction, wherein releasing at least the portion of the pre-authorization hold includes releasing an entirety of the pre-authorization.
Claim 9 recites: wherein prior to releasing at least the portion of the pre-authorization hold, the processor is further configured to: determine that the received cryptocurrency is less than a commensurate amount of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction, wherein the at least the portion of the pre-authorization hold corresponds to an amount of the pre-authorization hold proportionate to the received cryptocurrency.
Claim 10 recites: wherein the transaction data and the transfer credentials are received from an electronic transfer gateway.
Claims 11 and 25 recites: wherein the transaction data and the transfer credentials are received from a point-of-sale (POS) terminal.
Claim 21 and 23 recites: wherein the time period associated with the timer may be configured to be any period between two hours and twenty-four hours.
Claim 22 and 24 recites: wherein the time period associated with the timer may be configured to be any period between two hours and twenty-four hours.24. (New) The method of claim 19, wherein the barcode may be a linear barcode or a matrix barcode, wherein the matric barcode includes a QR code.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea of processing a transaction. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-3, 6-11, 13-15 and 18-21, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millius et al. (US 20200364686 A1, “Millius”) alternatively, in view of MCCARTER et al. (US 20200322350 A1, “MCCARTER”) in view of Johnsrud et al. (US 20170244707 A1, “Johnsrud”) and alternatively, further in view of Bimolaksono et al. (US 20240257111 A1, “Bimolaksono”).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 20: Millius discloses: A computer system comprising:
a processor (see paragraphs [0018] and [0086] and Fig. 1); and
a memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to (see paragraphs [0018] and [0086] and Fig. 1):
receive transaction data associated with a transaction, the transaction data including at least a transaction amount (Millius [0016]: the POS apparatus transmits a payment request, together with details describing the requested transaction to the payment platform via a conventional fiat currency payment network. The transaction details include merchant identification, the payment number, the item to be purchased, and the fiat currency amount to be paid to the merchant; [0030]: transmitting by the POS apparatus of a payment request to the payment platform, said payment request including a fiat currency purchase price), (see paragraphs [0016] and [0086] and Figs. 1A and 1B);
obtain transfer credentials associated with a value transfer card (Millius [0088]: the user can simply present the placebo debit card to the merchant 134, which is processed by the POS apparatus as if it were a conventional debit or credit card 136 and used to route a purchase request including a fiat currency purchase price to the payment platform), (see paragraph [0084] and Fig. 1A);
send a request for a pre-authorization hold of the transaction amount using the transfer credentials (Millius [0023]: the most recent user-signed transaction is signed by the payment platform and submitted to the blockchain for withdrawal of cryptocurrency from the user's account and conversion into fiat currency; [0086]: the user is able to pre-authorize expenditure of cryptocurrency 130 by sending a preauthorization user-signed transaction to the payment platform in a cryptocurrency preauthorization amount, for example using a computer via the internet, either in a specific amount for a specific purchase, or as a maximum amount, with the specific purchase vendor and price to be determined later. The preauthorization can be for a limited period of time and/or limited to a specific merchant and/or type of merchandise), wherein the request for the pre-authorization hold includes a transaction identifier and a blockchain address (Millius [0011]: At least one cryptocurrency “wallet” is created and associated with his account, and funds each of the wallets with cryptocurrency. The wallets require that each transaction is doubly signed by both the user and the payment platform, such that the funds can only be distributed from a wallet via a blockchain transaction that is signed by the private keys of both the user and the payment platform; [0025]: In some embodiments, when a new cryptocurrency wallet is opened for a user, the payment platform issues an address to the user for the new wallet; [0016]: The transaction details include merchant identification, the payment number, the item to be purchased, and the fiat currency amount to be paid to the merchant), (see paragraphs [0023], [0086], [0011], [0025], [0056] and [0016] and Fig. 1B), (see also paragraphs [0016], [0018] and [0084], [0029] and [0050]);
provide a notification to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal indicating that the transaction has been approved (Millius [0085]: If the purchase is approved by the user 116, then the payment platform accepts the payment request from the merchant 118, the merchant completes the sale to the user 120, and the user receives the purchased goods and/or services 121. Meanwhile, the payment platform initiates a merchant settlement transaction 122, either directly with the merchant or via a payment network partner, whereby fiat currency is transmitted to the merchant in the amount of the purchase 124), (see paragraph [0085] and Fig. 1A).
initiate a timer (Millius [0018]: The preauthorization can be for a limited period of time and/or limited to a specific merchant and/or type of merchandise; [0068]: In any of the above embodiments, the aggregation period can be a fixed period of time), (see paragraphs [0068] and [0086] and Figs. 1A and 1B);
[monitor] a blockchain address […] for receipt of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction (Millius [0087]: the payment platform determines whether sufficient funds are available in the user's account 132, and if so, then the requested amount is withdrawn from the user's account and set aside in anticipation of the preauthorized purchase; [0036]: transmitting by the user to the payment platform of a payment approval and a user-signed transaction, said user-signed transaction authorizing transfer to the payment platform from the user's cryptocurrency account of cryptocurrency in an aggregate amount equal to a sum of the equivalent cryptocurrency purchase amount and any previous cryptocurrency purchase amounts applicable to previous purchases made by the user since a most recent blockchain conversion was executed by the payment platform), (see abstract and paragraphs [0024]-[0025], [0031]-[0037] and [0056]-[0057]);
Examiner’s Note: the Examiner considers “the requested amount is withdrawn from the user's account and set aside in anticipation of the preauthorized purchase” of Millius to be the monitor a blockchain address for receipt of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction of the claimed limitation. The Examiner considers, the anticipation of the preauthorized purchase, is monitoring or waiting for the expected transaction to occur. and
when the cryptocurrency is received prior to an expiration of a time period associated with the timer: release at least a portion of the pre-authorization hold (Millius [0089]: Upon receipt of the purchase request, the payment platform determines 138 if the preauthorized cryptocurrency amount is sufficient to fund the purchase price according to a current cryptocurrency exchange rate. If so, then the purchase is completed as described above; [0086]: The preauthorization can be for a limited period of time and/or limited to a specific merchant and/or type of merchandise), (see paragraphs [0039], [0058] and [0086]).
Examiner’s Note: claim 1 recites “when the cryptocurrency is received prior to an expiration of a time period associated with the timer: release at least a portion of the pre-authorization hold”. This is conditional language limitation. The : release at least a portion of the pre-authorization hold only gets performed when the cryptocurrency is received, but is not performed otherwise. Accordingly, once the positively recited steps are satisfied, the method as a whole is satisfied -- regardless of whether or not other steps are conditionally performed under certain other hypothetical scenarios. MPEP § 2103 I C.
As indicated above, Millius discloses sending [by the user (e.g., user mobile device)] a request for a pre-authorization hold of the transaction amount using the transfer credentials (Millius [0060]: In embodiments, step C) can include sending by the user of the preauthorization request via a user mobile device). Additionally, Millius further discloses, sending [by the payment platform] a request for a [revised user-signed transaction] of the transaction amount using the transfer credentials (Millius [0056]: I) if the cryptocurrency price equivalent is less than the preauthorization amount, sending by the payment platform of a request for a revised user-signed transaction authorizing transfer to the payment platform from the user's cryptocurrency account of cryptocurrency in an aggregate amount equal to a sum of the cryptocurrency price equivalent and the previous cryptocurrency purchase amounts applicable to previous purchases made by the user since the most recent blockchain conversion was executed by the payment platform). Thus, Millius discloses, send a request for a pre-authorization hold of the transaction amount using the transfer credentials.
However, Alternatively, for compact persecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites MCCARTER to specifically disclose a server sending a pre-authorization request.
MCCARTER discloses: send a request for a pre-authorization hold of the transaction amount using the transfer credentials (MCCARTER [0081]: Pre-authorization request module 224 may receive counterparty data 222, and may perform any of the exemplary processes described herein to generate data 226 that requests a pre-authorization of a purchase transaction involving each of the proximately disposed merchants identified within counterparty data 222, such as, but not limited to, merchant 121; [0082]: Pre-authorization request module 224 may, in some instances, perform operations that package user identifier 206A (e.g., which uniquely identifies user 101 to contextual transaction system 130 or issuer system 140) and/or device identifier 206B (e.g., the IP or MAC address assigned to client device 102) into a portion of pre-authorization request data 226 (e.g., within a header portion, etc.). Further, pre-authorization request module 224 may perform additional operations that establish, within pre-authorization request data 226, a discrete pre-authorization data record associated with a requested pre-authorization of each of the expected purchase transactions involving client device 102 and corresponding ones of the proximately disposed merchants identified within counterparty data 222, such as, but not limited to, merchant 121.), (see also claim 21 and Fig. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Millius with MCCARTER to include computer-implemented systems of MCCARTER to communicate transaction data (e.g., pre-authorization) to enhance system capabilities and to enhance user experience.
As indicated above, Millius discloses monitor a blockchain address […] for receipt of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction.
Millius does not specifically disclose, however, Johnsrud discloses:
monitor the blockchain address by querying a blockchain network for the blockchain address and the transaction identifier continuously during a time period associated with the timer for receipt of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction (Johnsrud [0069]: the system may be configured to access the block chain distributed network of transaction information to determine or otherwise recognize transaction patterns, otherwise referred to herein as trends, associated with an entity based on the entity's transaction history. The block chain of transaction information may be monitored continuously, such that patterns or trends are determined within a selected time frame (i.e., proximate in time to completion of a pattern identifying transaction) or the block chain of transaction information may be accessed or a periodic basis, scheduled or otherwise, to determine transaction patterns or trends), (see paragraphs [0069] and Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Millius and MCCARTER with Johnsrud to include a function, such as and querying and monitoring blockchain transactions to enhance transaction authorization/approval process and to enhance transaction security.
As indicated above, Millius discloses, provide a notification to the POS terminal indicating that the transaction has been approved (Millius [0085]: If the purchase is approved by the user 116, then the payment platform accepts the payment request from the merchant 118, the merchant completes the sale to the user 120, and the user receives the purchased goods and/or services 121), (see paragraph [0085] and Fig. 1A). Thus, Millius discloses, provide a notification to the POS terminal indicating that the transaction has been approved.
However, Alternatively, for compact persecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites Bimolaksono to specifically disclose, provide an approval notification to the POS terminal.
Bimolaksono discloses: provide a notification to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal indicating that the transaction has been approved (Bimolaksono [0073]: In box 421, the computing environment 203 can transmit a transaction approval notification to the merchant system 206, in which the transaction approval notification can be provided to the POS device 106. In some examples, the transaction approval notification can be transmitted in response to receiving a threshold quantity of CBDC blockchain confirmations from the blockchain for the CBDC network 209. In some examples, the computing environment 203 can transmit a transaction approval notification to the client device 109; [0074] In box 424, the merchant system 206, such as the POS device 106, can indicate that the transaction has been authorized or approved), (see Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Millius, MCCARTER and Johnsrud with Bimolaksono to include a well-known payment transaction notifications feature, such as proving an approval notification to POS to enhance transaction authorization/approval process and to enhance user experience.
Regarding claims 2 and 14: Millius, MCCARTER, Johnsrud and Bimolaksono, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Millius further discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the system is further caused to: when the cryptocurrency is not received prior to the expiration of the time period associated with the timer: settle the pre-authorization hold (Millius [0089]: J) If the amount of cryptocurrency required to fund the purchase price is less than the preauthorized cryptocurrency amount, then the payment platform sends a request 140 to the user for a revised user-signed transaction that reflects the actual expenditure of cryptocurrency rather than the preauthorized amount), (see paragraphs [0034] and [0089]).
Regarding claims 3 and 15: Millius, MCCARTER, Johnsrud and Bimolaksono, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Millius further discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the request for the pre-authorization hold includes a flag (e.g., user-signed) indicating an acceptability of one or more forms of cryptocurrency (Millius [0086]: the user is able to pre-authorize expenditure of cryptocurrency 130 by sending a preauthorization user-signed transaction to the payment platform in a cryptocurrency preauthorization amount, for example using a computer via the internet, either in a specific amount for a specific purchase, or as a maximum amount, with the specific purchase vendor and price to be determined later), (see paragraphs [0086] and [0050]).
Examiner’s Note: with respect to claim language “the request for the pre-authorization hold includes a flag”. This is nonfunctional descriptive material as it only describes data values, while the data values are not used to perform any of the recited method steps. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. MPEP 2106.01 and 2111.05.
Regarding claims 6 and 18: Millius, MCCARTER, Johnsrud and Bimolaksono, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Millius further discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the request for the pre-authorization hold includes an indication of a commensurate amount of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction amount (see paragraphs [0016], [0018] and [0084]).
Examiner’s Note: with respect to claim language “the request for the pre-authorization hold includes an indication of a commensurate amount”. This is nonfunctional descriptive material as it only describes data values, while the data values are not used to perform any of the recited method steps. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. MPEP 2106.01 and 2111.05.
Regarding claims 7 and 19: Millius, MCCARTER, Johnsrud and Bimolaksono, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Millius further discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein, prior to initiating the timer, the processor is further configured to: generate a barcode representing the blockchain address and a transaction identifier (see paragraphs [0014] and [0082] and Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 8: Millius, MCCARTER, Johnsrud and Bimolaksono, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Millius further discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein prior to releasing at least the portion of the pre-authorization hold, the processor is further configured to:
determine that the received cryptocurrency is equal to a commensurate amount of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction (Millius [0089]: Upon receipt of the purchase request, the payment platform determines 138 if the preauthorized cryptocurrency amount is sufficient to fund the purchase price according to a current cryptocurrency exchange rate. If so, then the purchase is completed as described above), (see paragraphs [0087], [0089], [0094] and [0096] and Fig. 1B).
wherein releasing at least the portion of the pre-authorization hold includes releasing an entirety of the pre-authorization (see paragraphs [0087], [0089], [0094] and [0096] and Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 9: Millius, MCCARTER, Johnsrud and Bimolaksono, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Millius further discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein prior to releasing at least the portion of the pre-authorization hold, the processor is further configured to:
determine that the received cryptocurrency is less than a commensurate amount of cryptocurrency associated with the transaction (see paragraphs [0087], [0089], [0094] and [0096] and Fig. 1B),
wherein the at least the portion of the pre-authorization hold corresponds to an amount of the pre-authorization hold proportionate to the received cryptocurrency (see paragraphs [0087], [0089], [0094] and [0096] and Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 10: Millius, MCCARTER, Johnsrud and Bimolaksono, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Millius further discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the transaction data and the transfer credentials are received from an electronic transfer gateway. (Millius [0017]: the payment platform accepts the payment request from the merchant, and initiates a merchant settlement transaction, either directly with the merchant or via a payment network partner, whereby fiat currency is transmitted to the merchant in the amount of the purchase.), (see paragraphs [0017] and [0019]).
Regarding claims 11 and 25: Millius, MCCARTER, Johnsrud and Bimolaksono, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Millius further discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the transaction data and the transfer credentials are received from a point-of-sale (POS) terminal (Millius [0082]: the payment number, for example as a barcode, “QR” code, or other visible image to be scanned. In some of these embodiments, the PA number is only valid for a limited time period. The merchant proceeds to scan the visible image 106,), (see abstract and paragraphs [0014], [0016] and [0088] and Fig. 1A).
Regarding claims 21 and 23: Millius, MCCARTER, Johnsrud and Bimolaksono, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
As indicated above, Millius discloses, initiate a timer.
Millius does not specifically disclose, however, Johnsrud discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the time period associated with the timer may be configured to be any period between two hours and twenty-four hours (see paragraphs [0037], [0067] and [0070].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Millius and MCCARTER with Johnsrud to include a function, such as and querying and monitoring blockchain transactions to enhance transaction authorization/approval process and to enhance transaction security.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millius et al. (US 20200364686 A1, “Millius”) alternatively, in view of MCCARTER et al. (US 20200322350 A1, “MCCARTER”) in view of Johnsrud et al. (US 20170244707 A1, “Johnsrud”) alternatively, in view of Bimolaksono et al. (US 20240257111 A1, “Bimolaksono”) and further in view of Stults et al. (US 20150339644 A1, “Stults”).
Regarding claims 22 and 24: Millius, MCCARTER, Johnsrud and Bimolaksono, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Millius further discloses: The system of claim 7, wherein the barcode may be a linear barcode or a matrix barcode, wherein the matric barcode includes a QR code (Millius [0014]: a single-use payment number to the app which can be displayed on the mobile device, for example as a barcode, “QR” code, or other visible image to be scanned), (see paragraphs [0014] and [0082]).
Alternatively, Stults discloses: wherein the barcode may be a linear barcode or a matrix barcode, wherein the matric barcode includes a QR code (see paragraphs [0017] and [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Millius, MCCARTER, Johnsrud and Bimolaksono with Stults to include a well-known feature of barcodes, such as QR code to enhance communicating transaction data and to enhance transaction security.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAHED ALI whose telephone number is (571)270-1085. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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 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.
/JAHED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights