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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The Amendment of claims 19, 26 and 33, filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-28 and 30-39, are pending and hereby examined.
Examiner’s Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC § 112
As discussed at the interview held on 10/03/2025, it was agreed to, that Applicant’s specification paragraphs 49 and 69 provides support for the earlier 112A rejection in the Office Action mailed out on 07/15/2025. Therefore, the 112A rejection is hereby withdrawn.
35 USC § 101
Claims 19-28 and 30-39 continues to be directed towards maintaining a ledger of a user's rewards which accrue based on a reward configuration based on historical transaction activity and based on payment transactions made at a point of sale and associated with the user's account. This is an abstract idea. The computer technology merely automates and implements the abstract idea. The additional elements (“one or more servers“, “digital assets”, “a trained machine learning model”, “an internal ledger”, “a computing device”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”) do not improve the functioning of a computer nor does it improve a technology or technical field. Also, the additional elements of computer technology merely automate the abstract idea. In this instance, these are all elements of a computer and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The devices, merely automates and implements the abstract idea to perform the functions. The devices do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, the claim continues to be non-statutory. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. _208_, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
The claims have been amended to further disclose what the historical activity contains e.g., “demographic information associated with at least the user, and membership status of at least the user” and “wherein the one or more personalized settings include at least a user preference for a type of digital asset reward;” these newly added limitations does not help to overcome the abstract idea in these claims as they are mere descriptive materials that further describe what the historical activity contains. This is not an inventive concept. Therefore, the 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s remarks/amendment and assertions disclosed in the response filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged and Examiner found the remarks to be unpersuasive.
Applicant is of the opinion on page 20 of 25 of the response that […Narasimhan does not describe a machine learning model trained of user data that can generate a personalized reward configuration for a particular user. Narasimhan simply does not teach or suggest "generating, by the one or more servers and using a trained machine learning model, a reward configuration to be associated with a user account, the trained machine learning model trained based at least in part on historical transaction activity associated with at least the user account, demographic information associated with at least the user, and membership status of at least the user, wherein the reward configuration comprises one or more personalized settings associated with a digital asset reward to be distributed to the user account responsive to one or more transactions, and wherein the one or more personalized settings include at least a user preference for a type of digital asset reward," as recited in amended claim 19. DeCastro and Moreno do not remedy the deficiencies of Narasimhan. Consequently, at least this feature of amended claim 19 would not have been obvious in view of DeCastro, Narasimhan and Moreno. For at least the reasons presented herein, amended claim 19 would not have been obvious in view of DeCastro, Narasimhan, and Moreno. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 103 rejection of claim 19].
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument as Narasimhan {Abstract, Fig., 6, ¶¶ 0025-0027, 0039-0045}, in view of Moreno {¶¶ 0044-0046} teach this amended limitation “generating, by the one or more servers and using a trained machine learning model, a reward configuration to be associated with a user account, the trained machine learning model trained based at least in part on historical transaction activity associated with at least the user account, demographic information associated with at least the user, and membership status of at least the user, wherein the reward configuration comprises one or more personalized settings associated with a digital asset reward to be distributed to the user account responsive to one or more transactions, and wherein the one or more personalized settings include at least a user preference for a type of digital asset reward” as disclosed below, Emphasis added by the Examiner. Additionally, Examiner would also like to disclose that, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the 103 rejection is hereby maintained.
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, any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19-28 and 30-39, 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 19-25 are directed to a (i.e., method), claims 26-28 and 30-32 are directed to a product (i.e., computer device), and process claims 33-39 are directed to a product (i.e., non-transitory computer-readable medium). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
The limitations of independent claim 19, which is representative of independent claims 26 and 33, have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference.
The judicial exceptions recited in claim 19 is identified in bold below:
[A] A method comprising: maintaining, by one or more servers of a payment service in relation to a first wallet account, information about a number of digital assets;
[B] generating, by the one or more servers and using a trained machine learning model, a reward configuration to be associated with a user account, the trained machine learning model trained based at least in part on historical transaction activity associated with at least the user account, demographic information associated with at least the user, and membership status of at least the user, wherein the reward configuration comprises one or more personalized settings associated with a digital asset reward to be distributed to the user account responsive to one or more transactions, and wherein the one or more personalized settings include at least a user preference for a type of digital asset reward;
[C] processing, by the one or more servers, a payment for a point-of-sale (POS) transaction using a payment instrument associated with the user account;
[D] determining, by the one or more servers, based on the reward configuration, and based on, and distinct from, an amount of the payment, an amount of the digital assets to be distributed to the user account wherein the amount of the digital assets is based on a value of the digital assets at a time of the POS transaction; and
[E] updating, by the one or more servers and after the POS transaction, an internal ledger maintained by the payment service and associated with the first wallet account to assign the amount of the digital assets to a second wallet account associated with the user account.
Limitations A through E, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or functions of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal/commercial behavior (e.g., maintaining, generating, processing, determining, and updating). For example, the disclosure establishes maintaining a ledger of a user's rewards which accrue based on a reward configuration based on historical transaction activity and based on payment transactions made at a point of sale and associated with the user's account. This is an accounting process or practice that tracks assets as rewards for a user's patronage of a vendor or merchant, which is a form of commercial and legal activities, fits squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, limitations A through E recite at least one abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Accordingly, claim 19, which is representative of independent claims 26 ad 33, recite at least one abstract idea and the analysis proceed to Step 2A.2.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular,
claim 19, recites the additional elements in bold below:
[A] A method comprising: maintaining, by one or more servers of a payment service in relation to a first wallet account, information about a number of digital assets;
[B] generating, by the one or more servers and using a trained machine learning model, a reward configuration to be associated with a user account, the trained machine learning model trained based at least in part on historical transaction activity associated with at least the user account, demographic information associated with at least the user, and membership status of at least the user, wherein the reward configuration comprises one or more personalized settings associated with a digital asset reward to be distributed to the user account responsive to one or more transactions, and wherein the one or more personalized settings include at least a user preference for a type of digital asset reward;
[C] processing, by the one or more servers, a payment for a point-of-sale (POS) transaction using a payment instrument associated with the user account;
[D] determining, by the one or more servers, based on an amount of the payment and the reward configuration, an amount of the digital assets to be distributed to the user account wherein the amount of the digital assets is based on a value of the digital assets at a time of the POS transaction; and
[E] updating, by the one or more servers and after the POS transaction, an internal ledger maintained by the payment service and associated with the first wallet account to assign the amount of the digital assets to a second wallet account associated with the user account.
[F] Additionally, claim 26 recites “a computing device associated with a payment service comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to perform operations:”
[G] And claim 33 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations:”
The additional elements (“one or more servers“, “digital assets”, “a trained machine learning model”, “an internal ledger”, “a computing device”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”), are no more than a generic computer performing operations to automate the asset purchase transaction. When the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole, amounts to no more than or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a device/computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not recite any additional elements indicative of integration into a practical application. Rather, the claim as whole generally links the judicial exception to a technological environment (e.g., “one or more servers“, “digital assets”, “a trained machine learning model”, “an internal ledger”, “a computing device”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”), defined by high level recitations of a computer and the Internet. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when the considerations from Step 2A.2 are reevaluated. As discussed under Step 2A.2, the additional element(s) (“one or more servers“, “digital assets”, “a trained machine learning model”, “an internal ledger”, “a computing device”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”) amount to no more than generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment through “instructions” performed by a generic computer. Because those instructions embody the abstract idea, the claim itself is merely a recitation of the abstract idea and an instruction to “apply it” on a computer. This is not enough to provide an inventive
concept. Therefore, claims 19, 26 and 33 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 20-25, further recites further comprising generating, at the time of the POS transaction, the second wallet account associated with the user account; wherein generating the second wallet account comprises: determining a wallet address based on instructions from an external source blockchain; and associating the determined wallet address with the user account; wherein the first wallet account is associated with the payment service , and information included in the first wallet account is secured using one or more cryptographic keys associated with the payment service; further comprising purchasing, at a first time, the amount of the digital assets from an external source blockchain, wherein the amount of the digital assets are assigned to the payment service in an internal ledger associated with the external source blockchain at the first time; further comprising causing, at a second time after the first time, the internal ledger associated with the external source blockchain to be updated to assign the amount of the digital assets to the second wallet account upon updating the internal ledger associated with the first wallet account; further comprising sending, to an application executing on a mobile device, instructions to display the determined reward configuration. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or functions of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal/commercial behavior. For example, the disclosure establishes recognizing the location of the receiving account (i.e., address of the second wallet account) for the asset exchange, and determine a reward based on the user’s transaction history and display the determined reward, which is a form of commercial and legal activities, fits squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of Step 2A. The 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, claims 20-25 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 27-28 and 30-32, further recites wherein the operations further comprise upon determining that the second wallet account does not exist, generating the second wallet account associated with the user account; wherein the operations further comprise: identifying a user device associated with the user account; and upon generating the second wallet account, providing at least a public cryptographic key, a private cryptographic key, and a wallet address associated with the second wallet account to the user device; wherein the operations further comprise: upon determining that the reward configuration does not exist, providing a request to a user device associated with the user account for authorization to generate the reward configuration, wherein the reward configuration is generated upon receiving the authorization to generate the reward configuration from the user device; wherein the authorization to generate the reward configuration comprises an indication of a reward type to be used in determining the amount of the digital assets; wherein the authorization to generate the reward configuration comprises an indication of the payment instrument as associated with the reward configuration. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or functions of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal/commercial behavior. For example, the disclosure establishes determine that an account or a reward does not exist, creating a new account and generate the user’s reward based on the user’s authorization and defining the type of reward generated, which is a form of commercial and legal activities, fits squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of Step 2A. The 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, claims 27-32 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 34-38, further recites wherein the value of the digital assets at the time of the POS transaction is determined by an operator of a cryptocurrency network associated with the digital assets; wherein assigning the amount of the digital assets from the first wallet account to the second wallet account comprises initiating a transfer of the digital assets on the cryptocurrency network associated with the digital assets; wherein the second wallet account associated with the user account is generated on the cryptocurrency network associated with the digital assets; wherein the amount of the digital assets comprises an amount of cryptocurrency managed on the cryptocurrency network; wherein the reward configuration includes an indication of a cryptocurrency network. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or functions of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal/commercial behavior. For example, the disclosure establishes determine that an account or a reward does not exist, creating a new account and generate the user’s reward based on the user’s authorization and defining the type of reward generated, which is a form of commercial and legal activities, fits squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of Step 2A. The 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, claims 34-38 are not patent eligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an
ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea
into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement
to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the
computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract
idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 19-28 and 30-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 difference 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 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(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 19, 22-26, 33 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erly Dalvo DeCastro (US 20150170112 A1) in view of Narasimhan et al., (US 20030009379 A1) and Moreno et al., (US 20220101375 A1).
With respect to claims 19, 26 and 33, DeCastro teaches a method, a computing device and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations {Fig. 2 ¶ 0048 “…, the method comprising:
maintaining, by one or more servers of a payment service in relation to a first wallet account, information about a number of digital assets {¶ 0048 “…The internal logic and processor(s) of the device 10 may record the transaction and execute responsive commands locally or via the central authority (e.g., server-side hardware and software, agents on the network)…”}.
processing, by the one or more servers, a payment for a point-of-sale (POS) transaction using a payment instrument associated with the user account {see at least ¶ 0030 “…preferred embodiments of the device can be used to make payment at POS systems anywhere in the world”, and also ¶ 0032 “The systems and devices of the platform of the present invention can switch between the use of one currency and another… the device of the invention has a magnetic stripe or other means for interfacing with POS systems, ATM's, and other places for spending and withdrawing currencies as known in the art. The system may include POS terminals and ATMs which are specially adapted for use with devices of the present invention as part of a shared or a private financial network”}.
updating, by the one or more servers and after the POS transaction, an internal ledger maintained by the payment service and associated with the first wallet account to assign the amount of the digital assets to a second wallet account associated with the user account {¶ 0074 “…If and when the card is connected to cardholders' online accounts through the centralized network of the financial institution, or the peer-to-peer cryptocurrency network (e.g., the blockchain) of a cryptocurrency or equivalent digital asset, whether through an interface of the system of the invention or a third party provider such as a debit card network (e.g., via an ATM, POS or other terminal understood by persons of ordinary skill in the relevant arts), the affected account balances are updated, transactions are validated, and transactions required to be conducted or logged on the network side of the cards involved in the transactions are executed…”}.
DeCastro does not explicitly disclose, “generating, by the one or more servers and using a trained machine learning model, a reward configuration to be associated with a user account, the trained machine learning model trained based at least in part on historical transaction activity associated with at least the user account, demographic information associated with at least the user, and membership status of at least the user, wherein the reward configuration comprises one or more personalized settings associated with a digital asset reward to be distributed to the user account responsive to one or more transactions, and wherein the one or more personalized settings include at least a user preference for a type of digital asset reward”
However, Narasimhan discloses generating, by the one or more servers and using […] model, a reward configuration to be associated with a user account, the […] model trained based at least in part on historical transaction activity associated with at least the user account, demographic information associated with at least the user, and membership status of at least the user ¶ 0025 “..the user employs a “navigator” to browse the promotions based on user-defined search criteria…More specifically, the server 108 includes or has access to a user profile database 116 with user profile data for each user of the system 100. Based on the user profile for a particular user”, ¶ 0026 “…With the user profile for each user, the server 108 may target certain promotions to certain users based on factors such as income, product preferences, geographic location, and the like”, and ¶ 0027 “…a user profile for a user not only guides the user in accessing promotions but is updated upon the user's accessing of promotions to reflect such accessions”, wherein the reward configuration comprises one or more personalized settings associated with a digital asset [e.g. funds] reward to be distributed to the user account responsive to one or more transactions, and wherein the one or more personalized settings include at least a user preference for a type of digital asset reward {Abstract “…A reward is issued to the user upon presentation of a pre-determined account identifier to a vendor in connection with a purchase for which the available reward has been stored. The account identifier identifies an account from which funds are to be transferred to the vendor. A transaction record corresponding to the purchase is received, and includes the account identifier and a first amount of funds to be debited from the identified account. The received transaction record is compared with the selected available reward to determine that the reward should be issued based on the purchase and the available reward. Based on such determination, the identified account is credited for a second amount of funds based on the reward…”, ¶¶ 0025-0027, 0039-0045 “…referring now to FIG. 6, the vendor 202 creates a transaction record 204 as part of the purchase transaction for which an available reward is to be provided (step 603 in FIG. 6). As is known, such transaction record 204 is customarily submitted for receipt and payment by the account provider 210 providing the identified account, as will be described in more detail below. In fact, the transaction record 204 may be the transaction record created in most if not all credit card, debt card, or charge card purchase…” }.
determining, by the one or more servers, based on the reward configuration, and based on, and distinct from, an amount of the payment, an amount of the digital assets [e.g. funds] to be distributed to the user account wherein the amount of the digital assets [e.g. funds] is based on a value of the digital assets [e.g. funds] at a time of the POS transaction {Abstract, Fig. 6 ¶¶ 0039-0045 “…referring now to FIG. 6, the vendor 202 creates a transaction record 204 as part of the purchase transaction for which an available reward is to be provided (step 603 in FIG. 6). As is known, such transaction record 204 is customarily submitted for receipt and payment by the account provider 210 providing the identified account, as will be described in more detail below. In fact, the transaction record 204 may be the transaction record created in most if not all credit card, debt card, or charge card purchase. Typically, the transaction record 204 includes the name of the vendor 202, an account identifier 120, a first amount of funds to be debited from the identified account with respect to the purchase, purchase date/time information, etc. However, one skilled in the art will appreciate that the transaction record 204 may also include other pertinent information, including but not limited to an identification of the actual product/service purchased, an approval code, and the like”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the digital asset transaction of DeCastro to include the elements of reward configuration of Narasimhan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have additional resource in determining a reward. Furthermore, DeCastro discloses having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program. Narasimhan is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, in the same or similar context. Because both having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, as well as having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by DeCastro, as well as Narasimhan would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeCastro/Narasimhan.
The combination of DeCastro in view of Narasimhan does not explicitly disclose “…using a trained machine learning model on user account data”,
However, Moreno discloses “…using a trained machine learning model on user account data” {see at least ¶ 0044 “…customer facing services 212 may be configured to output or deliver the one or more rewards (determined by business logic engine 210) based on a machine learning model trained to determine different incentives associated with respective categories of purchases related to one or more objectives. In some embodiments, the machine learning model may be trained using a supervised machine learning algorithm, an unsupervised machine learning algorithm, or a combination of both, to analyze one or more purchase histories to identify different categories of purchases. The one or more purchase histories may include a purchase history of the user and/or purchase histories of a plurality of users.…”, and also ¶¶ 0045-0046 “…the machine learning model may be further trained to determine a value for each of the one or more incentives. For example, the machine learning model may be trained using a regression algorithm to determine the value for each the one or more incentives. Namely, in some embodiments, the machine learning model may be trained using the purchase history of the user or the purchase histories of the plurality of users, such that the value of each incentive is inversely proportional to a popularity of the category of purchase…”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the digital asset transaction of DeCastro in view of Narasimhan to include the elements of machine learning model of Moreno. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have additional resource in determining a reward. Furthermore, DeCastro discloses having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program and Narasimhan discloses of having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user. Moreno is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward, in the same or similar context. Because both having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program and having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, as well as using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by DeCastro in view of Narasimhan, as well as Moreno would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeCastro/Narasimhan/Moreno.
With respect to claim 22, the combination of DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 19 above.
Furthermore, DeCastro discloses wherein the first wallet account is associated with the payment service , and information included in the first wallet account is secured using one or more cryptographic keys associated with the payment service {see at least ¶ 0014 “…A Wallet is a digital analogy to the physical object for storing money and information. In a digital currency network, a Wallet may contain a user's private key(s) which allow access to currency allocated to it in the block chain. For example, a Bitcoin wallet can display the total balance of bitcoins it controls and lets a user pay a specific amount to a specific person. This differs from credit card use where a cardholder is charged by the merchant…”, ¶ 0036 “…the systems, devices, and methods of the present invention enable members of, or other participants on, a network to be able to store and exchange data representing financial value inhering in various types of assets, and data representing ownership of units of those assets (e.g., the private keys corresponding to units of a cryptocurrency). In preferred embodiments, means for interacting with merchants are provided to enable the buying and selling of goods and services in an economic system using the value of said assets as currency, where the platform of the system handles the logical operations necessary to convert from one currency to another currency, or from one means for storing value to another means for storing value, as appropriate for each type of transaction that a person using the system desires to conduct.
With respect to claim 23, the combination of DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 19 above.
Furthermore, DeCastro discloses, further comprising purchasing, at a first time, the amount of the digital assets from an external source blockchain, wherein the amount of the digital assets are assigned to the payment service in an internal ledger associated with the external source blockchain at the first time {¶ 0030 “...further comprises logic for recording, tracking, and posting transaction data and for reconciling said data not only with the central server or hosting means of the system, but also between transacting parties… the first party to connect to the network of the system automatically informs the central authority of the system that certain transactions with the other have been conducted, and the subsequently connecting party(ies) are acknowledged by the system accordingly. Advantageously, the invention can track data relating to transfers and transactions (amounts, personal identifying information of the parties, date, time, currency, exchange rates… the device can be used to make payment at POS systems anywhere in the world”, and also ¶ 0032 “…Thus, parties using different currencies can fluidly conduct business without needing to setup exchange parameters or negotiate at the point of execution. There may be corresponding digital wallets containing currency in one type or another on the cloud (e.g., on a user's account on the network) that may be integrated with this feature of the invention, or another device and or system (inside or outside of the system of the invention) may be setup as a compatible adjunct…”, and ¶ 0050}.
With respect to claim 24, the combination of DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 23 above.
Furthermore, DeCastro discloses, further comprising causing, at a second time after the first time, the internal ledger associated with the external source blockchain to be updated to assign the amount of the digital assets to the second wallet account upon updating the internal ledger associated with the first wallet account {¶¶ 0030, 0032, 0050}.
With respect to claim 25, the combination of DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 19 above.
Furthermore, Moreno discloses, further comprising sending, to an application
executing on a mobile device, instructions to display the determined reward configuration {¶ 0074 “…This also enhances customer experience by providing to the customer, not only relevant and contextual rewards that are relevant to the most recent information of the customer (e.g., location, purchase history, etc.), but also rewards that are determined to be more likely to be used by the customer”, claim 1 “…querying the data repository for historical data associated with the end user based on the determined identity of the end user, the historical data being data captured within a predetermined time window prior to a capture time of data in the one or more raw data streams; calculating a propensity score of the end user based on the received historical data; ranking the correlated data based on the propensity score; and sending a notification to an end user device, the notification including one or more incentives based on the correlated data ranking”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the digital asset transaction of DeCastro in view of Narasimhan to include the elements of machine learning model of Moreno. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have additional resource in determining a reward. Furthermore, DeCastro discloses having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program and Narasimhan discloses of having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user. Moreno is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward, in the same or similar context. Because both having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program and having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, as well as using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by DeCastro in view of Narasimhan, as well as Moreno would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeCastro/Narasimhan/Moreno.
With respect to claim 38, the combination of DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 33 above.
Furthermore, DeCastro discloses, wherein the reward configuration includes an indication of a cryptocurrency network {¶ 0029 “…Advantageously, the invention can interface with network-based account to exchange digital currency for Fiat currency and then be used like a conventional debit card platform. And participating purveyors of rewards programs (e.g., points, tokens, miles, coupons, rebates, etc.) can be converted to currency}.
Claims 20-21 and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erly Dalvo DeCastro (US 20150170112 A1) in view of Narasimhan et al., (US 20030009379 A1) and Moreno et al., (US 20220101375 A1) and further in view of Harrison et al., (US Pat. 11507971 B2).
With respect to claim 20, the combination of DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 19 above, but does not explicitly disclose, however, Harrison discloses further comprising generating, at the time of the POS transaction, the second wallet account associated with the user account {see at least (37)/[5:33-45] “…For example, a cardholder may provide a first wallet address associated with a first cryptocurrency, a second wallet address associated with a second cryptocurrency, etc. Moreover, each cardholder may select which type(s) of rewards to receive…”, claim 1 “…calculating a reward due to the individual based on the value of the transactions that satisfy the eligibility criterion; identifying a profile associated with the individual, wherein the profile identifies (i) the specialized payment card, (ii) a cryptocurrency, and (iii) a first digital wallet hosted on an exchange and associated with the individual; identifying a second digital wallet associated with an amount of cryptocurrency sufficient to disburse the reward in a form of the cryptocurrency; generating, in response to the operation of calculating the reward, a disbursement request specifying a disbursement of the reward from the second digital wallet to the first digital wallet…”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the digital asset transaction of DeCastro in view of Narasimhan and Moreno to include the elements of having access to a second wallet address of Harrison. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have access to a second wallet. Furthermore, DeCastro discloses having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, Narasimhan discloses having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, Moreno discloses using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward, and Harrison is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having access to a second wallet address, in the same or similar context. Because both having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, and using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward as well as having access to a second wallet address, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno, as well as Harrison would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeCastro/Narasimhan/Moreno/Harrison.
With respect to claim 21, the combination of DeCastro, Narasimhan and Moreno in view of Harrison teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 20 above.
Furthermore, Harrison discloses wherein generating the second wallet account comprises: determining a wallet address based on instructions from an external source blockchain; and associating the determined wallet address with the user account {claim 1 “...identifying a second digital wallet associated with an amount of cryptocurrency sufficient to disburse the reward in a form of the cryptocurrency; generating, in response to the operation of calculating the reward, a disbursement request specifying a disbursement of the reward from the second digital wallet to the first digital wallet…”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the digital asset transaction of DeCastro in view of Narasimhan and Moreno to include the elements of having access to a second wallet address of Harrison. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have access to a second wallet. Furthermore, DeCastro discloses having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, Narasimhan discloses having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, Moreno discloses using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward, and Harrison is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having access to a second wallet address, in the same or similar context. Because both having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, and using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward as well as having access to a second wallet address, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno, as well as Harrison would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeCastro/Narasimhan/Moreno/Harrison.
With respect to claim 34, the combination of DeCastro, Narasimhan and Moreno in view of Harrison teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 33 above.
Furthermore, Moreno discloses wherein the value of the digital assets at the time of the POS transaction is determined by an operator of a cryptocurrency network associated with the digital assets {¶ 0046 “… the machine learning model may be further trained to determine a value for each of the one or more incentives. For example, the machine learning model may be trained using a regression algorithm to determine the value for each the one or more incentives. Namely, in some embodiments, the machine learning model may be trained using the purchase history of the user or the purchase histories of the plurality of users, such that the value of each incentive is inversely proportional to a popularity of the category of purchase…”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the digital asset transaction of DeCastro in view of Narasimhan and Moreno to include the elements of having access to a second wallet address of Harrison. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have access to a second wallet. Furthermore, DeCastro discloses having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, Narasimhan discloses having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, Moreno discloses using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward, and Harrison is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having access to a second wallet address, in the same or similar context. Because both having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, and using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward as well as having access to a second wallet address, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno, as well as Harrison would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeCastro/Narasimhan/Moreno/Harrison.
With respect to claim 35, the combination of DeCastro, Narasimhan and Moreno in view of Harrison teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 34 above.
Furthermore, Harrison discloses, wherein assigning the amount of the digital assets from the first wallet account to the second wallet account comprises initiating a transfer of the digital assets on the cryptocurrency network associated with the digital assets {(109)/[20:3-8] “…an API call is made to initiate a transfer of cryptocurrency from a corporate wallet into a cardholder's wallet (also referred to as the “destination wallet”) (step 1401). In other embodiments, an API call is made to purchase the cryptocurrency and then transfer it to the destination wallet…”, claim 1 “…determining a first time and date to distribute the amount of cryptocurrency from the second digital wallet to the first digital wallet, wherein determining the first time and the date is based at least in part on an average block time of a blockchain associated with the cryptocurrency; sending via a second API, a first instruction to the exchange to transfer the amount of the cryptocurrency from the second digital wallet to the first digital wallet as the reward at the first time and the date…”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the digital asset transaction of DeCastro in view of Narasimhan and Moreno to include the elements of having access to a second wallet address of Harrison. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have access to a second wallet. Furthermore, DeCastro discloses having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, Narasimhan discloses having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, Moreno discloses using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward, and Harrison is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having access to a second wallet address, in the same or similar context. Because both having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, and using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward as well as having access to a second wallet address, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno, as well as Harrison would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeCastro/Narasimhan/Moreno/Harrison.
With respect to claim 36, the combination of DeCastro, Narasimhan and Moreno in view of Harrison teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 34 above.
Furthermore, Harrison discloses, wherein the second wallet account associated with the user account is generated on the cryptocurrency network [e.g., the cryptocurrency rewards platform] associated with the digital assets {see at least (44)/[7:8-10] “The cryptocurrency rewards platform can independently distribute cryptocurrency rewards to cardholders based on the updated data associated with each cardholder…”, claim 1}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the digital asset transaction of DeCastro in view of Narasimhan and Moreno to include the elements of having access to a second wallet address of Harrison. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have access to a second wallet. Furthermore, DeCastro discloses having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, Narasimhan discloses having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, Moreno discloses using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward, and Harrison is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having access to a second wallet address, in the same or similar context. Because both having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, and using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward as well as having access to a second wallet address, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno, as well as Harrison would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeCastro/Narasimhan/Moreno/Harrison.
With respect to claim 37, the combination of DeCastro, Narasimhan and Moreno in view of Harrison teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 34 above.
Furthermore, DeCastro discloses, wherein the amount of the digital assets comprises an amount of cryptocurrency managed on the cryptocurrency network {¶ 0048 “…An amount spent via the device may be deducted, for example, from the currency balance stored in the device and then wait for a connection to the network to update it centrally. The device 10 can also quickly download the owner's complete account information, including information relating to and resulting from previous transactions, or of the activity by transacting parties who are in privity with owner, and the like…”}.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erly Dalvo DeCastro (US 20150170112 A1) in view of Narasimhan et al., (US 20030009379 A1) and Moreno et al., (US 20220101375 A1) and further in view of Iwai et al., (JP 2019020849 A).
With respect to claim 27, the combination of DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 19 above, but does not explicitly disclose, however, Iwai discloses, wherein the operations further comprise upon determining that the second wallet account does not exist, generating the second wallet account associated with the user account {see at least ¶ 0019 “…In addition, the user who wants to transact the electronic content may create the second wallet for transacting the virtual currency and the token after acquiring the electronic content…”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the digital asset transaction of DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno to include the elements of Iwai. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a second wallet when needed. Furthermore, DeCastro discloses having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, Narasimhan discloses having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, Moreno discloses using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward, and Iwai is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a second wallet as needed, in the same or similar context. Because both having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, and using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward as well as creating a second wallet as needed, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno, as well as Iwai would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeCastro/Narasimhan/Moreno/Iwai.
With respect to claim 28, the combination of DeCastro, Narasimhan and Moreno in view of Iwai teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 27 above.
Furthermore, Moreno discloses wherein the operations further comprise: identifying a user device associated with the user account {see at least ¶ 0011
“…The marketing entity may identify characteristics of people (or profiles/devices) to which the entity wishes to “market” a product or service…”, and also ¶ 0016 “…a marketing technique may involve incentivizing customer behavior through targeted promotional offers or monitoring a customer behavior (through monitoring use of financial instruments like credit cards, and/or mobile devices associated with the user, or user accounts, and the like). An “offer” may be construed to be a promise by an offer provider, which may be any entity engaged in targeted marketing, to provide a consumer with a benefit under a certain set of implicit or explicit conditions known as terms. An offer may also be a reward offered or earned based on certain attributes of a user (e.g., a user associated with one of client devices 105, 110, or 115)…”}.
Iwai discloses upon generating the second wallet account […] {¶ 0019}.
And DeCastro discloses, […] providing at least a public cryptographic key, a private cryptographic key, and a wallet address associated with the second wallet account to the user device {¶ 0014 “…In a digital currency network, a Wallet may contain a user's private key(s) which allow access to currency allocated to it in the block chain. For example, a Bitcoin wallet can display the total balance of bitcoins it controls and lets a user pay a specific amount to a specific person…”, and ¶ 0096 “…A cryptocurrency may comprise logic that defines a coin on its network as any arbitrarily defined but constant quantum of value relative to the entire supply of a cryptocurrency. It is an express intent that the cards communicate with any current or future device which transmit digital currencies and related data such as private or public keys, wallet addresses, pricing in any and all digital currency formats, whether the transmission is active or passive from small or large device such as Smart Tags coming on the market…”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the digital asset transaction of DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno to include the elements of Iwai. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a second wallet when needed. Furthermore, DeCastro discloses having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, Narasimhan discloses having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, Moreno discloses using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward, and Iwai is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a second wallet as needed, in the same or similar context. Because both having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, and using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward as well as creating a second wallet as needed, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno, as well as Iwai would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeCastro/Narasimhan/Moreno/Iwai.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erly Dalvo DeCastro (US 20150170112 A1) in view of Narasimhan et al., (US 20030009379 A1) and Moreno et al., (US 20220101375 A1) and further in view of Iwai et al., (JP 2019020849 A) and Harrison et al., (US Pat. 11507971 B2).
With respect to claim 30, the combination of DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 26 above, but does not explicitly disclose, however, Iwai discloses, wherein the operations further comprise: upon determining that the reward configuration does not exist {see at least ¶ 0019},
And Harrison providing a request to a user device associated with the user account for authorization to generate the reward configuration, wherein the reward configuration is generated upon receiving the authorization to generate the reward configuration from the user device {(36)/[5:21-28] “In some embodiments, each cardholder links her account with the platform to her account on an exchange in order to receive cryptocurrency rewards in the exchange-hosted account. This can occur through open authorization (“OAuth”) or a similar authentication process. OAuth is an open-standard authorization protocol that can be used to provide the cryptocurrency rewards platform with secure designated access to the exchange-hosted account…”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the digital asset transaction of DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno to include the elements of Iwai and Harrison. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a second wallet when needed and also having access to the second wallet address. Furthermore, DeCastro discloses having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, Narasimhan discloses having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, and Moreno discloses using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward, and Iwai and Harrison are merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a second wallet as needed and having access to a second wallet address, in the same or similar context. Because both having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user and using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward as well as creating a second wallet as needed and having access to a second wallet address, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno, as well as Iwai and Harrison would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeCastro/Narasimhan/Moreno/Iwai/Harrison.
With respect to claim 31, the combination of DeCastro, Narasimhan and Moreno in view of Iwai and Harrison teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 30 above.
Furthermore, Harrison discloses wherein the authorization to generate the reward configuration {(36)/[5:21-28]}, comprises an indication of a reward type to be used in determining the amount of the digital assets {(35)/[5:5-8] “…Generally, the prospective cardholder is prompted to provide two pieces of information: (1) a wallet or an account with which to receive rewards; and (2) the type of rewards preferred by the prospective cardholder…”, and also {(74)/[13:48-57] “…Moreover, the platform can, for each cardholder, determine the amount owed, the type of reward chosen, and the address for its delivery. This information will be loaded into the disbursement queue (step 203). Once the platform determines it is time to distribute rewards, it can automatically distribute the rewards from a corporate wallet to the cardholders' wallets (step 204). In some embodiments, the platform verifies delivery of the rewards after the rewards have been sent (step 205)”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the digital asset transaction of DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno to include the elements of Iwai and Harrison. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a second wallet when needed and also having access to the second wallet address. Furthermore, DeCastro discloses having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, Narasimhan discloses having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, and Moreno discloses using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward, and Iwai and Harrison are merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a second wallet as needed and having access to a second wallet address, in the same or similar context. Because both having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user and using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward as well as creating a second wallet as needed and having access to a second wallet address, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno, as well as Iwai and Harrison would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeCastro/Narasimhan/Moreno/Iwai/Harrison.
With respect to claim 32, the combination of DeCastro, Narasimhan and Moreno in view of Iwai and Harrison teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 30 above.
Furthermore, Harrison discloses, wherein the authorization to generate the reward configuration comprises an indication of the payment instrument as associated with the reward configuration {(74)/[13:36-44] “…a cardholder completes a transaction using a specialized payment card (step 201). The reward earned by completing the transaction can determined by a payment processor, a financial institution such as a bank, or the platform itself, and this information can be delivered the platform in the form of a data file (or simply “file”). The file can be delivered to the platform in the form of an email, fax, or a comma-separated values (CSV) file retrieved by the platform (step 202)…”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the digital asset transaction of DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno to include the elements of Iwai and Harrison. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a second wallet when needed and also having access to the second wallet address. Furthermore, DeCastro discloses having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, Narasimhan discloses having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user, and Moreno discloses using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward, and Iwai and Harrison are merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a second wallet as needed and having access to a second wallet address, in the same or similar context. Because both having a platform for a digital asset transaction including a reward program, having a platform of accessing promotion/reward associated with a user and using the aid of machine learning model in determining associated user reward as well as creating a second wallet as needed and having access to a second wallet address, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by DeCastro and Narasimhan in view of Moreno, as well as Iwai and Harrison would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over DeCastro/Narasimhan/Moreno/Iwai/Harrison.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon:
(US 20040034601 A1) – Erwin Kreuzer, System and Method for Content
Distribution and Reselling - generally relates to content distribution
systems and content distribution methods.
2) (US 20180101906 A1) – McDonald et al., Secure Element Method for Distributed Electronic Ledger – elates generally to improvements in computer related technology.
3) (US 20190147486 A1) - Monaco et al., - Crypto-currency rewards network – relates to providing apparatus and methods for a custom rewards architecture within a pre-existing product with a custom protocol that enables customers, merchants, and issuers to utilize the architecture in real-time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT IDIAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1284. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 10:30AM to 7:30PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICK MCATEE, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form
/V.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698