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 .
Acknowledgment
This Action is in response to the amendment filed on December 19, 2025. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been fully examined. Claims 9-10 have been cancelled by Applicant.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant merely argued the amended claim limitations. Applicant’s arguments were fully considered, but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
With respect to claim 3, the subject matter of claim 3 is incorporated into the independent claim 1, but was not removed from claim 3. As a result, claim 3 currently repeats portions of claim 1. It is required that the repeated limitations are removed from claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to claim 4, the subject matter of the previous version of claim 4 is currently incorporated into the independent claim 1, however, the subject matter is still repeated in claim 4. Therefore, claim 4 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1 upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutter (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0303921, in view of Kang (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0380495,) further in view of Doney (US 2020/0342539.)
With respect to claims 1 and 6, Mutter teach:
a digital currency platform system comprising: a user terminal; and a digital currency platform server configured to communicate with the user terminal, (asset transfer system servers: FIG. 1, [0042]-[0044], user computers: [0031]-[0032])
receiving inputs for joining a digital currency service from a user terminal; (FIG. 8, user registers for a service via registration GUI: FIG. 8, [0081], [0086]
interconnecting to a specific stock brokerage firm system by a user of the user terminal on the basis of the inputs received from the user terminal; (user is registered to a valid user account with an asset transfer system (i.e., stock brokerage): [0086]-[0087])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “stock brokerage firm,” indicates non-functional descriptive material and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
receiving an input of financial transaction menu selection from the user terminal; (FIG. 10, user requests a service via a request tab: [0092]-[0093])
receiving an input of a digital currency amount for a financial transaction from the user terminal; (the request includes an amount: [0095])
performing a financial transaction of digital currency on the basis of the input of financial transaction menu selection and the input of the amount; (by pressing send tab, the asset transfer system performs the desired transaction: [0099])
generating transaction details according to performing the financial transaction, and distributing the transaction details to a blockchain network, (transaction is created: FIG. 5, [0075]-[0078], transaction data is recorded on a blockchain: [0043]-[0044], [0077])
Mutter does not explicitly teach; however, Kang teaches:
receiving a request for … transaction service from a user terminal of … user; (mobile device sends a payment request: [0098]-[0099], [0106])
receiving the digital currency from the user terminal, wherein the digital currency is stored in an electronic wallet uniquely assigned to the user; ([0103])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “the digital currency is stored…” indicates not positively recited function “stored” and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
calculating a value of the received digital currency on the basis of spot currency according to a predetermined ratio; (calculate cryptocurrency (i.e., digital currency) value by an exchange rate (i.e., spot currency): [0106])
transferring the spot currency in an amount equal to the calculated value to a trading institution server, (the payment is exchanged to a currency accepted by the merchant (i.e., trading institution server): [0106])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation“ trading institution” indicates non-functional descriptive material and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the payment transaction based on exchange rate calculation, as taught by Kang, into the digital asset transmission of Mutter, in order to enable payment between entities using different payment methods. (Kang: Abstract, [0002])
Mutter and Kang do not explicitly teach; however, Doney teaches:
wherein the digital currency received from the user terminal is a wrapped digital currency configured as a single package of one or more types of digital currency when a specific approval authority approves a change of ownership of the digital currency, (assets (i.e. digital currency) are wrapper using a token-in-token structure referred to as a composite token) (i.e. package): [0051], [0055]-[0056])
wherein the package includes wrapping data comprising:
an approval indication by the specific approval authority for the change of ownership…(wrapper includes permission functions for authorized execution: [0053])
information on the transfer of ownership of the digital currency, (wrapped token includes an ownership transfer function: [0056]-[0057])
details of a market price at the time of wrapping the digital currency, and details of a digital currency value ratio agreed upon between transaction parties, (valuation of assets is performed based on market price: [0070])
wherein the method further comprises, after the step of performing the financial transaction, releasing the package of the wrapped digital currency. (after completion of transaction, the tokens are destroyed (i.e., released): [0149]-[0150])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate token wrapping, as taught by Doney, into the digital asset transmission of Mutter and Kang, in order to provide liquidity between different asset types. (Doney: Abstract, [0010])
Mutter, Kang and Doney do not explicitly teach:
wherein the digital currency is a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).
However, the claim recitation indicates non-functional descriptive material and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
The examiner further notes that the claim recitation:
wherein the package includes wrapping data comprising:
an approval indication by the specific approval authority for the change of ownership, guarantee details that the digital currency is usable as the CBDC, information on the transfer of ownership of the digital currency, details of a market price at the time of wrapping the digital currency, and details of a digital currency value ratio agreed upon between transaction parties,
indicates non-functional descriptive material and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim, because the content of a wrapped package does not affect the claimed features in any way.
With respect to claims 2 and 7, Mutter, Kang and Doney teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 6.
Moreover, Mutter teaches:
wherein the transaction details distributed to the blockchain network include at least a user name, a stock brokerage firm bank account number, a digital currency platform service bank account number of the user opened through the digital currency platform server, a change in the digital currency according to performing the financial transaction, and a type of the financial transaction. (user data including user name, account information including a verifiable code (i.e., account number): [0049]: [0056]-[0057], [0083], different types of digital assets are integrated: [0072]-[0073], Table 2, account balances are checked: [0063])
The examiner notes that the recitation of claim 2 merely describes the data included in transaction details. However, the data is not used or referred to in the claim or in any other claims. Therefore, the content of the transaction details is not affecting the claimed functions in any way, and the claim recitation does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 3, Mutter, Kang and Doney teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Kang teaches:
providing a digital currency platform service by a digital currency platform server, (bitcoin payment server: FIG. 13, [0105])
receiving a request for … transaction service from a user terminal of … user; (mobile device sends a payment request: [0098]-[0099], [0106])
receiving digital currency - the digital currency is stored in an electronic wallet uniquely assigned to the user - from the user terminal; ([0103])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “the digital currency is stored…” indicates not positively recited function “stored” and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
calculating a value of the received digital currency on the basis of spot currency according to a predetermined ratio. (calculate cryptocurrency (i.e., digital currency) value by an exchange rate (i.e., spot currency): [0106])
Kang does not explicitly teach “an arbitrary transaction service” and “an arbitrary user.” However, claim recitations are merely a title for a service and a user without a specific definition for the word “arbitrary.” Therefore, the claim recitations do not further limit the scope of thew claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the payment transaction based on exchange rate calculation, as taught by Kang, into the digital asset transmission of Mutter, in order to enable payment between entities using different payment methods. (Kang: Abstract, [0002])
With respect to claim 4, Mutter, Kang and Doney teach the limitations of claim 3.
Moreover, Kang teaches:
transferring spot currency as much as the calculated value to a trading institution server. (the payment is exchanged to a currency accepted by the merchant (i.e., trading institution server): [0106])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation“ trading institution” indicates non-functional descriptive material and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the payment transaction based on exchange rate calculation, as taught by Kang, into the digital asset transmission of Mutter, in order to enable payment between entities using different payment methods. (Kang: Abstract, [0002])
With respect to claim 5, Mutter, Kang and Doney teach the limitations of claim 4.
Moreover, Kang teaches:
wherein the digital currency received from the user terminal is received after an approval procedure for approving change of ownership of the digital currency is executed by a specific approval authority. (payment authorization by the acquirer (i.e., approval authority): [0092], [0104])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation“ approval procedure for approving change of ownership…” indicates intended use of the approval procedure and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim, because the “approving” function is not positively recited. In addition the claim recitation “ approval procedure…is executed by…” indicates not positively recited “executed” function and does not further limit the scope of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the payment transaction based on exchange rate calculation, as taught by Kang, into the digital asset transmission of Mutter, in order to enable payment between entities using different payment methods. (Kang: Abstract, [0002])
With respect to claim 8, Mutter, Kang and Doney teach the limitations of claim 6.
Moreover, Mutter teaches:
receiving a request for an arbitrary transaction service from the user terminal; (FIG. 10, user requests a service via a request tab: [0092]-[0093])
The examiner notes that “an arbitrary transaction,” is not defined in Applicants claims or the Specification. Therefore, a transaction performed by Mutter is interpreted as an arbitrary transaction.
receiving the digital currency - the digital currency is stored in an electronic wallet uniquely assigned to the user - from the user terminal; [0040]-[0041], [0050], [0063])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “the digital currency is stored…” indicates not positively recited function “stored” and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
Mutter does not explicitly teach; however, Kang teaches:
calculating a value of the received digital currency on the basis of spot currency according to a predetermined ratio. (calculate cryptocurrency (i.e., digital currency) value by an exchange rate (i.e., spot currency): [0106])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the bitcoin payment service of Kang, where the currency value is calculated based on an exchange rate, into the digital asset transfer of Mutter, in order to facilitate payment compatible with different platforms. (Kang: Abstract, [0018])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jerram (US 2012/0221502,) teaches wrapping assets into packages for trade purposes.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights