`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 patent application filed on September 13, 2023, claiming priority to Applications KR10-2021-0035063 filed March 18, 2021, KR10-2021-0136787 filed October 14, 2021, and KR10-2022-0033776 filed March 18, 2022. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mutter (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0303921.)
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:
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.
With respect to claims 2 and 7, Mutter 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0380495,) in view of Anderson (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0364277)
With respect to claim 3, 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; however, Anderson teaches:
receiving a request for an arbitrary transaction service from a user terminal of an arbitrary user; ([0085, [0111], claim 22)
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 mobile app of Anderson including the session based middleware, into the bitcoin payment service of Kang, in in order to facilitate integration of arbitrary user generated transactions into the transaction system. (Anderson: Abstract, [0055])
With respect to claim 4, Kang and Anderson 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.
With respect to claim 5, Kang and Anderson 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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutter, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Kang.
With respect to claim 8, Mutter teaches 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])
With respect to claim 9, Mutter and Kang teach the limitations of claim 8.
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 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])
With respect to claim 10, Mutter and Kang teach the limitations of claim 9.
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 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
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 on (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
/RADU ANDREI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698