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
The following Non-Final office action is in response to applicant’s After RCE/Amendments/Remarks filed on 10/03/2025.
Priority Date: [Claimed]>Prov.(11/07/2022)
Claim Status:
Amended claims:1-2, 4-7,9-11, 13-16, 18-19, and 21-24
Pending claims : 1-25
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (Abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (Step-1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (Step-2A) If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, (Step-2B) it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examples of abstract ideas grouping include: (a) Mental processes; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activities [ i. Fundamental Economic Practice; ii. Commercial or Legal Interaction; iii. Managing Personal behavior or Relations between People]; and (c) Mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Claim Analysis is based on the Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG)-[see MPEP § 2106.04(II), and § 2106.04(d) & MPEP § 2106.05(a),(b),(c),(e)…].
[Step-1] The claims are directed to a method/system/machine, which are a statutory category of invention.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for performing real-time payment security for digital-asset based computing entities.
[Step-2A]-Prong 1:The claim 1 is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception:
The claim recites the limitations of:
establishing, by a digital asset-based interaction computing entity of a digital asset-based interaction system, a first transformer pool smart contract of a plurality of transformer pool smart contracts, wherein the first transformer pool smart contract is associated with a consensus network computing entity node of a digital asset distributed ledger technology (DLT) network associated with first digital assets;
storing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a first set of system digital assets in the first transformer pool smart contract to back digital asset-based interactions associated with the first digital assets;
selecting, by a source computing entity of the digital asset-based interaction system, an amount of the first digital assets to use for a digital asset-based interaction with a destination computing entity of the digital asset-based interaction system, wherein the amount of the first digital assets is stored in a non-custodial asset management unit of the source computing entity, and wherein the non-custodial asset management unit is associated with the digital asset DLT network;
obtaining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, digital asset-based interaction information from one or more of the source computing entity and the destination computing entity,
wherein the digital asset-based interaction involves the source computing entity providing the amount of the first digital assets and the destination computing entity accepting a second amount of desired assets; and
executing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a real-time digital asset-based interaction process to provide the second amount of desired assets to the destination computing entity in real-time; and
executing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a nonreal-time digital asset-based interaction process to reconcile the real-time digital asset-based interaction process with a digital asset backing computing entity of the digital asset-based interaction system,
wherein the digital asset backing computing entity manages system digital assets stored by the plurality of transformer pool smart contracts.
The claimed method/system/machine simply describes series of steps for performing real-time payment security for digital-asset based computing entities.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via human commercial or business or transactional activities/interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by organizing human business activity. For example, without the structure elements language, the claim encompasses the activities that can be performed manually between the users and a third party. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are business interaction/sale activity that falls within the enumerated group of “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG.
[Step-2A]-Prong 2:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step-2B]
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept).
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including independent claims 10, and 18.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-25 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-25 are directed towards:
Using [in claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-25], a source computing entity identifier (ID), a type of the digital assets, a type of the desired assets, and a destination computing entity identifier (ID); an amount of the digital asset-based interaction, and an item involved in the digital asset-based interaction; exchanging, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the first amount of the digital assets to the second amount of the desired assets, wherein the first amount is substantially equal to the second amount;
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under same rationale.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-25 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendhi et al (US 2020/0042998 A1) in view of Brock et al (US 10,540,639 B2).
Ref claim 1, Mendhi discloses a method comprises:
establishing, by a digital asset-based interaction computing entity of a digital asset-based interaction system, a first transformer pool smart contract of a plurality of transformer pool smart contracts, wherein the first transformer pool smart contract is associated with a consensus network computing entity node of a digital asset distributed ledger technology (DLT) network associated with first digital assets (para [0019]; via the Methods and Systems for supporting fiat currency transaction, for ex. in cryptocurrency or decentralized ledger-based methods and systems may be used with smart contracts that may run on decentralized ledgers [e.g. blockchains]…[0020]; via Entities access the disclosed system…A shared ledger or a distributed ledger technology[DLT], run on distributed networks/outcome of “consensus mechanism”… [0043]; via to increase the speed of transactions at exchanges may achieve via a working capital or pool of funds maintained by the system. …);
storing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a first set of system digital assets in the first transformer pool smart contract to back digital asset-based interactions associated with the first digital assets (para [0043]; via to increase the speed of transactions at exchanges may achieve via a working capital or pool of funds maintained by the system. …[0067]; via collection account 780 in which payments received from consumers is stored…in a different storage currency [ease of digital operations]…);
selecting, by a source computing entity of the digital asset-based interaction system, an amount of the first digital assets to use for a digital asset-based interaction with a destination computing entity of the digital asset-based interaction system, wherein the amount of the first digital assets is stored in a non-custodial asset management unit of the source computing entity, and wherein the non-custodial asset management unit is associated with the digital asset DLT network (para [0021], FIG.1; via a system 190 of digital assets…include computing device which interfaces and acts within system 190…[0043]; via to increase the speed of transactions at exchanges may achieve via a working capital or pool of funds maintained by the system…receiving the paid amount by the consumer…);
obtaining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, digital asset-based interaction information from one or more of the source computing entity and the destination computing entity (para [0021], FIG.1; via a system 190 of digital assets…include computing device which interfaces and acts within system 190…[0027]; via the smart contract 100/files related to the digital assets…to be able to receive, pay and exchange funds…),
wherein the digital asset-based interaction involves the source computing entity providing the amount of the first digital assets and the destination computing entity accepting a second amount of desired assets (para [0028]; via consumer computing device 120. May interact/transactions to a transaction ledger 170/blockchain transaction ledger…and data structures may be used to create distributed transactions ledger 170…[0029], FIG.2; via smart contracts…[0051]; via the API infrastructure 620…); and
executing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a real-time digital asset-based interaction process to provide the second amount of desired assets to the destination computing entity in real-time (para [0051]; via the API infrastructure 620……,price of the digital asset requested digital asset …or an amount for each beneficiary in any currency units, etc. ….); and
[[executing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a nonreal-time digital asset-based interaction process to reconcile the real-time digital asset-based interaction process with a digital asset backing computing entity of the digital asset-based interaction system]],
wherein the digital asset backing computing entity manages system digital assets stored by the plurality of transformer pool smart contracts (para [0028]; via consumer computing device 120. May interact/transactions to a transaction ledger 170/blockchain transaction ledger…and data structures may be used to create distributed transactions ledger 170…[0043]; via transaction at exchanges…via a working capital or pool of funds…consumer’s payment is successful… [0050], FIG.6, the consumer may initiate a transaction on a digital asset… [0051]; via the API infrastructure 620……,price of the digital asset requested digital asset …or an amount for each beneficiary in any currency units, etc. ….).
Mendhi does not explicitly disclose the step of performing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a nonreal-time digital asset-based interaction process to reconcile the real-time digital asset-based interaction process with a digital asset backing computing entity of the digital asset-based interaction system.
However, Brock being in the same field of invention discloses the step of: performing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a nonreal-time digital asset-based interaction process to reconcile the real-time digital asset-based interaction process with a digital asset backing computing entity of the digital asset-based interaction system (Col. 6; Lines 11-17; via, while FIG. 1 illustrates merchant 102 sending the transaction data directly to the payment service 108…[Lines 18-25]; via, while customer profiles …[Lines 26-43]; via, a computing device with merchant [ POS device 105…]…Col. 7; [Lines 25-30]; via, FIG. 2 illustrates…customer to pay with a virtual currency, especially a cryptocurrency that utilizes blockchain to record transactions…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Mendhi to include the disclosures as taught by Brock to facilitate a transaction of digital asset, a virtual currency as cryptocurrency.
Ref claim 2, Mendhi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the digital asset-based interaction information includes a source computing entity identifier (ID), a type of the first digital assets, a type of the desired assets, and a destination computing entity identifier (ID) (para [0028]; via consumer computing device 120. May interact/transactions to a transaction ledger 170/blockchain transaction ledger…and data structures may be used to create distributed transactions ledger 170…).
Ref claim 3, Mendhi discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the digital asset-based interaction information further includes one or more of:
an amount of the digital asset-based interaction; and an item involved in the digital asset-based interaction (para [0051]; via the API infrastructure 620……,price of the digital asset requested digital asset …or an amount for each beneficiary in any currency units, etc. ….).
Ref claim 4, Mendhi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the executing the real-time digital asset-based interaction process comprises:
obtaining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the amount of the first digital assets from the source computing entity; authorizing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the digital asset-based interaction in accordance with system authorization parameters; and when the digital asset-based interaction is authorized: exchanging, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the first amount of the digital assets to the second amount of the desired assets; and providing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the second amount of the desired assets to the destination computing entity (para [0051]; via the API infrastructure 620……,price of the digital asset requested digital asset …or an amount for each beneficiary in any currency units, etc. ….).
Ref claim 5, Mendhi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the executing the nonreal-time digital asset-based interaction process comprises:
instructing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the digital asset backing computing entity to lock an amount of system digital assets of the system digital assets within the transformer pool smart contract to back the digital asset-based interaction (para [0019]; via Systems for supporting fiat currency transaction, ex. in cryptocurrency or decentralized ledger-based systems may be used with smart contracts that may run on decentralized ledgers [e.g. blockchains]…);
connecting, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, to the digital asset DLT network associated with the first digital assets, wherein the digital asset DLT network implements a validation procedure to verify the first amount of the first digital assets sent by the source computing entity; and obtaining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, results of the validation procedure from the digital asset DLT network (para [0051]; via the API infrastructure 620……,price of the digital asset requested digital asset …or an amount for each beneficiary in any currency units, etc.).
Ref claim 6, Mendhi discloses the method of claim 5, further comprises: when the results indicate that the amount of the first digital assets are verified:
instructing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the digital asset backing computing entity to release the amount of the system digital assets; and when the results indicate that the amount of the first digital assets are not verified: instructing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the digital asset backing computing entity to consume the amount of the system digital assets (para [0028]; via consumer computing device 120. May interact/transactions to a transaction ledger 170/blockchain transaction ledger…and data structures may be used to create distributed transactions ledger 170…).
Ref claim 7, Mendhi discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the instructing the digital asset backing computing entity to consume the amount of the system digital assets comprises:
instructing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, the digital asset backing computing entity to transfer the amount of the system digital assets from an address associated with the first transformer pool smart contract to an address associated with the digital asset-based interaction computing entity (para [0043]; via to increase the speed of transactions at exchanges may achieve via a working capital or pool of funds maintained by the system. … [0051]; via the API infrastructure 620……,price of the digital asset requested digital asset …or an amount for each beneficiary in any currency units, etc. ….).
Ref claim 8, Mendhi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the source computing entity is associated with the digital asset-based interaction computing entity via a source computing entity digital asset-based interaction interface (para [0028]; via consumer computing device 120. May interact/transactions to a transaction ledger 170/blockchain transaction ledger…and data structures may be used to create distributed transactions ledger 170…).
Ref claim 9, Mendhi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the digital asset backing computing entity is associated with a second transformer pool smart contract of the plurality of transformer pool smart contracts, wherein the second transformer pool smart contract is associated with a second digital asset DLT network associated with second digital assets, and wherein the second transformer pool smart contract stores a second set of system digital assets to back digital asset-based interactions involving the second digital assets (para [0019]; via Systems for supporting fiat currency transaction, ex. in cryptocurrency or decentralized ledger-based systems may be used with smart contracts that may run on decentralized ledgers [e.g. blockchains]…. [0028]; via consumer computing device 120. May interact/transactions to a transaction ledger 170/blockchain transaction ledger…and data structures may be used to create distributed transactions ledger 170…[0043]; via to increase the speed of transactions at exchanges may achieve via a working capital or pool of funds maintained by the system. …);
Claim 10 recites similar limitations to claim 1, and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claims 11-16 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 2-7 respectively.
Ref claim 17, Mendhi discloses the digital asset-based interaction system of claim 10 further comprises:
one or more staking computing entities operable to provide the system digital assets (para [0028]; via consumer computing device 120. May interact/transactions to a transaction ledger 170/blockchain transaction ledger…and data structures may be used to create distributed transactions ledger 170…).
Claim 18 recites similar limitations to claim 1, and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1, as set forth above.
Claims 19-25 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 2-8 respectively.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS:
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/04/2025 have been fully considered and they are deemed to be non-persuasive:
Response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection is addressed in the above rejection.
Applicant's arguments are similar to previous arguments already submitted and addressed on last Final office action. Examiner incorporates herein again the response to arguments mailed with Final office action on August 18, 2025.
Applicant argued with 101 rejection in substance that "The claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea and the claims Recite” Significantly More" than abstract idea, and noted PEG-2019 [Step-2A-Prong One-Prong two & Step-2B].
Applicant also cited analogy with the court cases such as, Berkheimer Memo. PTAB.
In addition to 101 rejections Applicant noted about 103 rejections with applied prior arts.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Updated claim analysis as a whole are provided above again based on the Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance [2019-PEG].
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The rejection of the previous action was a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank I’ntl. 573 U.S. (2014). Under Alice.
Applicant’s REMARKS:
1.a. Status of the claims: “Claims 1-25 are pending; Claims are rejected.” b. …: c. …:
2. Claims 1-25 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101:
Applicant argued that, “ because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The Applicant respectfully disagrees with this rejection and the reasoning thereof.
To be eligible for patent protection under 35 USC §101, the claimed invention must satisfy two criteria: 1) the claimed invention must be in one of the four statutory categories listed in U.S.C. §101: …;…;
Step 2A, which determines whether the claim recites a judicial exception, is further divided into two parts: Step 2A Prong One and Step 2A Prong Two. …;…;…;
As in Ex parte Steven Charles Davis, App. No. 2019-004127 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2020), where the PTAB held that the integration of blockchain validation and traditional payment protections provided meaningful technical improvement to the field of fraud prevention and digital currency transactions, …;…;
Accordingly, even if found to recite an abstract idea, the claims are directed to an inventive concept under Step 2B. The combination of elements is not conventional, routine, or well- understood, and the Examiner has cited no evidence to that effect as required by Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). … the §101 rejection …withdrawn.”
In Response: Examiner Disagrees.
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 1: A method for deriving financial information from digital assets and ledger is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. The specific limitations of the invention are identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(establishing, …, a first transformer pool smart contract of a plurality of transformer pool smart contracts,… node of a digital asset distributed ledger technology (DLT) network associated with first digital assets; storing, … in the first transformer pool smart contract to back … the first digital assets; selecting, …, an amount …the non-custodial asset management unit is associated with the digital asset DLT network; obtaining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, digital asset-based interaction information …a second amount of desired assets; and executing, … provide the second amount of desired assets to the destination computing entity in real-time; and executing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a nonreal-time digital asset-based interaction process to reconcile the real-time …a digital asset backing computing entity … manages system digital assets stored by the plurality of transformer pool smart contracts.)
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the subject matter grouping (b) of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions’).
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of:
(establishing, …, a first transformer pool smart contract of a plurality of transformer pool smart contracts,… node of a digital asset distributed ledger technology (DLT) network associated with first digital assets; storing, … in the first transformer pool smart contract to back … the first digital assets; selecting, …, an amount …the non-custodial asset management unit is associated with the digital asset DLT network; obtaining, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, digital asset-based interaction information …a second amount of desired assets; and executing, … provide the second amount of desired assets to the destination computing entity in real-time; and executing, by the digital asset-based interaction computing entity, a nonreal-time digital asset-based interaction process to reconcile the real-time …a digital asset backing computing entity … manages system digital assets stored by the plurality of transformer pool smart contracts.)
do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. “ establishing, …, a first transformer pool smart contract of,… (DLT) network associated with first digital assets; storing, … in the first transformer pool smart contract to back … the first digital assets; selecting, …,with the digital asset DLT network; obtaining, …, digital asset-based interaction information …a second amount of desired assets; and executing, … in real-time; and executing,…, a nonreal-time digital asset-based interaction process to reconcile the real-time … manages system digital assets stored by the plurality of transformer pool smart contracts.”)
do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification [0255]: processor, memory, instructions, storage medium, and electrical communication) as tools to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (g)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Alice-Step (2B): Additionally, 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 (Claims: e.g., processor, machine learning, equations, instructions, memory, electrical communication, and storage medium) amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or merely using generic components as tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Applicant further[previously] cites Berkheimer, presuming that Examiner took the position that the claims describe well-understood, routine and conventional activities.
Examiner did not indicate that the claims describe well-understood, routine and conventional activities in the 101 rejection in this particular case. Rather, Examiner identified the focus of the invention, and determined that it is directed to an abstract idea and the use of a generic computer to implement the abstract idea.
In response to applicant’s argument, recitation, “A very recent Patent… (PTAB)…”A PTAB decision does not represent Office policy and moreover a PTAB decision is fact specific to the case being decided.
Moreover, In support of “Mental Process ”or “Method of organizing Human activity”: It is to be noted that “the claimed invention is similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mental processes: “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind ). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), 2106.05(a)(g)(h)”
3. Claims 1-25 have been rejected under 35 USC §103:
Applicant argued that, “ as being unpatentable over Mendhi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0042998) in view of Brock et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,540,639).
The Applicant respectfully believes that the claims, as amended, overcome the present rejection.”
In Response: Examiner Disagrees with applicant’s assertions:
However, Mendhi et al disloses all limitations [including amended elements] in views of Brock et al such as via
Mendhi (para [0005]; via the method may include receiving a request to access a digital asset,…further include recording to a decentralized transaction ledger,…ledger asset to the user…, (para [0021], FIG.1; via a system 190 of digital assets…include computing device which interfaces and acts…[0020]; via Entities access the disclosed system…A shared ledger or a distributed ledger technology[DLT], run on distributed networks/outcome of “consensus mechanism”… [0027]; via the smart contract 100/files related to the digital assets…to be able to receive, pay and exchange funds…, [0028]; via consumer computing device 120. May interact/transactions to a transaction ledger 170/blockchain transaction ledger…and data structures may be used to create distributed transactions ledger 170…, and (para [0029], FIG.2; via smart contracts…[0051]; via the API infrastructure 620…) And
Brock (Col. 6; Lines 11-17; via, while FIG. 1 illustrates merchant 102 sending the transaction data directly to the payment service 108…[Lines 18-25]; via, while customer profiles …[Lines 26-43]; via, a computing device with merchant [ POS device 105…]…Col. 7; [Lines 25-30]; via, FIG. 2 illustrates…customer to pay with a virtual currency, especially a cryptocurrency that utilizes blockchain to record transactions…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Mendhi to include the disclosures as taught by Brock to facilitate a transaction of digital asset, a virtual currency as cryptocurrency.
CONCLUSION
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Samuelsson et al( US 2024/0119445 A1) discloses Payment Service Provider Interoperability for Digital Payments.
Huang et al (US 20220067711 A1) discloses Method and System for Regulation of Blockchain Transactions.
Ben Fadhl et al (WO 2018130910 A1) discloses Peer-To-Peer Exchange Platform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HATEM M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3021, E-mail: Hatem.Ali@USPTO.Gov and FAX (571)270-4021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, ABHISHEK VYAS can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HATEM M ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3691