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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 2, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application. Applicant' s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed October 1, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 16, “the transactions” should read --transactions--.
In claim 1, line 17, “blockchain network;” should read --blockchain network; and--.
In claim 6, line 17, “of the coin,” should read --of the coin; and--.
Claims 2-5 are further objected due to their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitations of “to unlock at least a part of the coin with the identifier, change the attribute of the at least a part of the coin, and decrease the first token by an amount of at least a part of the coin” are not disclosed in the original disclosure including the Specification and Drawings.
Appropriate corrections/clarifications are 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, Claims 1-6 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. a machine).
Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Based on consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-6 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Regarding Claims 1 and 6:
Claims 1 and 6 is drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “a common area blockchain network for managing a coin associated with a cash currency, the common area blockchain network including at least one issuing apparatus; a first additional area blockchain network for managing a first token associated with the coin, the first additional area blockchain network including at least one management business operator apparatus and at least one user apparatus; a first issuing unit configured to issue the coin on the common area blockchain network; a providing unit configured to associate the coin issued by the first issuing unit with the first additional area blockchain network; a second issuing unit configured to issue the first token on the first additional area blockchain network based on an amount of the coin associated with the first additional area blockchain network by the providing unit; setting unit configured to set an attribute tag of the coin to an identifier of a management business operator associated with the first additional area blockchain network and lock the coin with the identifier by allocating the coin with the identifier to the first additional area blockchain network to restrict transfer of the coin to the transactions involving the first additional area blockchain network; redemption unit configured to unlock at least a part of the coin with the identifier, change the attribute of the at least a part of the coin, and decrease the first token by an amount of at least a part of the coin.”
Under the Step 2A Prong One, the limitations, as underlined above, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). For example, but for the “blockchain network”, “apparatus”, and “unit” language, the underlined limitations in the context of this claim encompass the human activity. The series of steps including managing a coin, managing a first token, issuing the coin, associating the coin, issuing the first token, setting the status of at least a part of the coin, canceling the status of at least a part of the coin, and decreasing the first token by an amount of at least a part of the coin belong to a typical sales activities or behaviors; or business relations, because the coin and token are processed for transferring a value or an amount of the coin.
Under the Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “An electronic currency management system comprising:”, “An electronic currency management system comprising: a common area blockchain network.. a first additional area blockchain network.. an issuing apparatus comprising at least one processor circuit with a memory comprising instructions, that when executed by the processor, causes the processor circuit to at least:.. a management business operator apparatus comprising at least one processor circuit with a memory comprising instructions, that when executed by the processor, causes the processor circuit to at least:”, “blockchain network”, “apparatus”, and “unit”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., performing generic functions of an interaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present, there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present, there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present, there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present, and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under the Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the process amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-5:
Dependent claims 2-5 include additional limitations, for example, “transfer unit” and “blockchain network” (Claim 2); “blockchain network” and “transfer unit” (Claim 3); “transfer unit” and “blockchain network” (Claim 4); and “transfer unit” and “blockchain network” (Claim 5), but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, they require no more than generic computer structures or signals to be executed, and do not recite any Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or Improvements to any other technology or technical field.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation or implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 2-5 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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 factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vladi (US 20210019737 A1; already of record in IDS) in view of Ingargiola (US 20210073913 A1; already of record in IDS).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Vladi teaches An electronic currency management system comprising (Vladi: Abstract):
a common area blockchain network for managing a coin associated with a cash currency, the common area blockchain network including at least one issuing apparatus (Vladi: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0015 teach(es) a consumer user may send fiat currency to a trust entity, such as a bank; The trust entity may notify a blockchain network to issue a corresponding amount of digital stable tokens to the consumer's cryptocurrency wallet; The blockchain network may track transactions involving the issuance and exchange of the digital stable token); a first additional area blockchain network for managing a first token associated with the coin, the first additional area blockchain network including at least one management business operator apparatus and at least one user apparatus (Vladi: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0015, 0068 teach(es) The trust entity may notify a blockchain network to issue a corresponding amount of digital stable tokens to the consumer's cryptocurrency wallet; the consumer user may exchange another type of cryptocurrency for the digital stable tokens using a token cross-chain bridge); a first issuing unit configured to issue the coin on the common area blockchain network (Vladi: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0015, 0075, 0026 teach(es) The blockchain network may track transactions involving the issuance and exchange of the digital stable token. The digital stable token may be backed by a fiat currency; the token cross-chain bridge may determine the exchange rate between a cryptocurrency and the digital stable tokens; The side-chain blockchain maintained by the side-chain network may be different than the main-chain blockchain of the main-chain blockchain network. The side-chain blockchain may track users' transfers and receipts of a cryptocurrency other than the digital stable token tracked by the main-chain blockchain. This other cryptocurrency may be native to the side-chain blockchain network); a providing unit configured to associate the coin issued by the first issuing unit with the first additional area blockchain network (Vladi: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0068, 0015, 0026 teach(es) The side-chain blockchain may track users' transfers and receipts of a cryptocurrency other than the digital stable token tracked by the main-chain blockchain); a second issuing unit configured to issue the first token on the first additional area blockchain network based on an amount of the coin associated with the first additional area blockchain network by the providing unit (Vladi: Paragraph(s) 0069, 0072, 0074 teach(es) The token cross-chain bridge may allow for users on the different blockchain networks to exchange cryptocurrency for digital stable tokens, or vice versa, without the use of a cryptocurrency exchange).
However, Vladi does not explicitly teach setting unit configured to set an attribute tag of the coin to an identifier of a management business operator associated with the first additional area blockchain network and lock the coin with the identifier by allocating the coin with the identifier to the first additional area blockchain network to restrict transfer of the coin to the transactions involving the first additional area blockchain network; redemption unit configured to unlock at least a part of the coin with the identifier, change the attribute of the at least a part of the coin, and decrease the first token by an amount of at least a part of the coin.
Ingargiola from same or similar field of endeavor teaches setting unit configured to set an attribute tag of the coin to an identifier of a management business operator associated with the first additional area blockchain network and lock the coin with the identifier by allocating the coin with the identifier to the first additional area blockchain network to restrict transfer of the coin to the transactions involving the first additional area blockchain network; redemption unit configured to unlock at least a part of the coin with the identifier, change the attribute of the at least a part of the coin, and decrease the first token by an amount of at least a part of the coin (Ingargiola: Paragraph(s) 0145, 0221, 0233, 0112, 0215, 0219 teach(es) Balances can also be computed in real time from a state on blockchain ledgers and may involve real-time enrichment/adjustments to state such as “earmarking” assets as used when a redemption request is pending even though no blockchain transaction for the redeem has taken place yet; The system can create an “earmark” on a UTXO set in shared memory cache to reduce balance by any order; protocols that can lock and unlock and transfer assets based on meeting logical criterion, smart contracts, etc.; lock and unlock data or assets (can be wallet to wallet transfer with different policies applied, (e.g. no withdrawals allowed without m of n signature or custodial signature) or other programmatic lock or reservation of assets (e.g. smart contract code executed on a public ledger or other machine or policies) preventing movement/spend).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Vladi to incorporate the teachings of Ingargiola for setting unit configured to set an attribute tag of the coin to an identifier of a management business operator associated with the first additional area blockchain network and lock the coin with the identifier by allocating the coin with the identifier to the first additional area blockchain network to restrict transfer of the coin to the transactions involving the first additional area blockchain network; redemption unit configured to unlock at least a part of the coin with the identifier, change the attribute of the at least a part of the coin, and decrease the first token by an amount of at least a part of the coin.
There is motivation to combine Ingargiola into Vladi because Ingargiola’s teachings of “earmarking” assets would facilitate managing and tracking asset issuance, change of ownership, and asset redemption (Ingargiola: Paragraph(s) 0145, 0221, 0137).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Vladi and Ingargiola teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Vladi further teaches further comprising a transfer unit configured to transfer the coin associated with the first token within the common area blockchain network in accordance with transfer of the first token within the first additional area blockchain network (Vladi: Paragraph(s) 0072, 0074 teach(es) The token cross-chain bridge may detect, via the smart contract, a transaction in the transactions of the side-chain blockchain network that corresponds with a user wanting to exchange cryptocurrency native to the side-chain blockchain network for a corresponding amount of digital stable tokens native to the main-chain blockchain network).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Vladi and Ingargiola teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above; and Vladi further teaches further comprising a second additional area blockchain network for managing a second token associated with the coin, wherein, when an instruction to transfer a value from the first additional area blockchain network to the second additional area blockchain network is accepted, the transfer unit: decreases the first token based on the transfer instruction, associates the coin associated with the first additional area blockchain network, with the second additional area blockchain network, and increases the second token based on the transfer instruction (Vladi: Paragraph(s) 0074, 0031 teach(es) detecting, via the smart contract, a transaction of the transactions of the main-chain blockchain network, indicating that a user is exchanging digital stable tokens native to the main-chain blockchain network for a corresponding amount of cryptocurrency, which may be native to the side-chain blockchain network; a first party sending cryptocurrency to a second party does not necessarily include the first party sending data from its device to a device of the second party, but may involve adjusting the cryptocurrency balance of each of the two parties on the applicable blockchain).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Vladi and Ingargiola teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above; and Vladi further teaches wherein: the transfer unit monitors a transaction within the additional area blockchain network, and transmits an instruction to perform an operation of the coin to the common area blockchain network, in the detected transaction (Vladi: Paragraph(s) 0051-0052, 0087 teach(es) The first smart contract may automatically transfer the first amount of the digital stable token to the consumer user's cryptocurrency wallet upon detecting the deposit data).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Vladi and Ingargiola teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above; and Vladi further teaches wherein the transfer unit transfers a coin that is not associated with a token within the common area blockchain network (Vladi: Paragraph(s) 0026, 0042 teach(es) the Bitcoin blockchain network includes Bitcoin as its native token. The Bitcoin blockchain network tracks the transfer of Bitcoins between users of the Bitcoin blockchain network; in response to receiving an instruction from the blockchain network, the trust entity computing device may transfer fiat currency between financial accounts in the trust entity account database).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 that “the claim features as amended use a processor and/or computing technology to assign an identifier to a digital coin and locking the digital coin with the identifier to control transfer and/or use of the coin on the blockchain network,” examiner respectfully argues that assigning an identifier to a coin and locking the coin can be performed manually by people, and the additional elements such as processor, computing technology, digital coin, blockchain network, etc. are recited without technical details and contexts in the claims. It is recommended for the applicant to amend the claims further with more technical details and contexts of digital coin, identifier, attribute tag, relationship between the coin and the token, locking and unlocking of the coin, etc.
Regarding applicant' s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 that “Ingargiola fails to teach or suggest that coins from the common pool which were allocated to a specific additional area can be set to a state where they can be reassigned to an additional area different from that specific additional area,” examiner respectfully argues that Ingargiola teaches earmarking assets and lock/unlocking assets (Ingargiola: Paragraph(s) 0145, 0221, 0233, 0112, 0215, 0219). It is recommended for the applicant to amend the claims with more technical details of attribute tag, identifier, and coin vs token.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arvanaghi (US 10929842 B1) teaches System, Method And Program Product For Depositing And Withdrawing Stable Value Digital Assets In Exchange For Fiat.
Back (US 10812274 B2) teaches Transferring Ledger Assets Between Blockchains Via Pegged Sidechains.
Hill (US 11416931 B2) teaches Investment Fund Token Ownership.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAY LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
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.
/CLAY C LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699