DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a final action on the merits.
Claims 1–15 have been received.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 6 are currently amended.
Claims 11–15 are previously withdrawn as non-elected.
Claims 1–10 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in European (EP) on 06 Mar 2024. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 23020143.6 application as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.55.
Additionally see, Failure Status Report, dated 6 Aug 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 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. 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, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application. Examples of abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Mon, 7 Jan 2019, Pg. 50 - 57).
Analysis
In the instant case, Claim 1 is directed toward a system. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Claim 1 is directed to fundamental economic principles or practices, which is an abstract idea. The recited abstract idea is shown in bold below:
A secure transaction unit for managing payment transactions in an electronic payment transaction system, the secure transaction unit comprising:
a communication interface for receiving and transmitting one or more tokens, wherein each token comprises at least a monetary value, a private key of a token-individual key pair, and a token-type information as token elements; and
control circuitry comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory memory storing program instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the secure transaction unit to cause a direct exchange of one or more tokens with one or more other secure transaction units in the electronic payment transaction system, and to send one or more registration requests including token references to a token reference register of the electronic transaction system for registering the tokens in the electronic payment transaction system,
wherein each token reference comprises the monetary value of a respectively assigned token of the one or more tokens, a public key corresponding to the private key of the token-individual key pair, and the token-type information of the assigned token as token reference elements, and
wherein within the electronic payment transaction system each token reference is uniquely assigned to a single token and the token reference register stores the token references without storing the tokens.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers fundamental economic principles or practices, which is grouped within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” groupings of abstract ideas in prong one of Step 2A (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A, the additional elements of the claim merely serves as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. More specifically, the additional elements include:
a secure transaction unit
a communication interface
control circuitry comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory memory storing program instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the secure transaction unit to [perform the abstract idea], and
“electronic” payment
Both individually and as an ordered combination these additional elements merely link the abstract idea to technological environment. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (i.e., automate and/or implement) the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B, the additional elements amount to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The additional elements merely provide instructions to “apply it” using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept.
Viewed as a whole, the combination of element(s) recited in the claims merely describe the abstract idea using computer technology. Considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. Which, according to the MPEP, cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
The Examiner notes, the language “for registering the tokens in the electronic payment transaction system” recites intended use that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation (see MPEP 2103 I C).
Regarding claim 2. Claim 2 recites an additional element (in bold) “ wherein the token-type information is an information for uniquely identifying a financial service provider unit in the electronic payment transaction system, wherein the financial service provider unit issued the token”, which merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it does no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e., automate and/or implement) the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 3–8 further describe the abstract idea within the independent claim, and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, are also not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 9 (“wherein the secure transaction unit is a secure element that is operatively connected to an electronic equipment of a participant in the electronic payment system”) and 10 (“wherein the secure transaction unit is a secure wallet that is hosted at a service provider unit”) recites additional elements (in bold), which merely serves as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e., automate and/or implement) the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, are not patent eligible.
The Examiner notes, the language (within Claim 2) “wherein the token-type information is an information for uniquely identifying a financial service provider unit. . .”, only describe characteristics of the token-type information, which is stored data, and are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics. Therefore, these limitations recite non-functional descriptive material and do not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability . . .. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
The Examiner notes, the language (within Claim 3) “wherein the token-type information is one or more of the following: an international security identification number code;. . .a bank identifier number”, only describe characteristics of the token-type information, which is stored data, and are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics. Therefore, these limitations recite non-functional descriptive material and do not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability . . .. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
The Examiner notes, the language (Clam 8) “used for a future payment transaction” recite intended use that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation (see MPEP 2103 I C).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by INGARGIOLA1 (WO 2021/046494 A1).
Regarding claim 1, INGARGIOLA teaches
a communication interface for receiving and transmitting one or more tokens, wherein each token comprises at least a monetary value, a private key of a token-individual key pair, and a token-type information as token elements [The communications interface 140 can generally govern and manage the user input and system output. (000104); 00072–00079 “. . .approving the request by issuing (i.e., transmitting) a token to the client and generating a new block on the blockchain-based ledger that identifies the client and the collateral associated with the token. . . generating a first token associated with an amount of the first asset type held by a custodian, the first token associated with a block on the first custodian blockchain-based ledger identifying the amount of the first asset type for a first client. . . system can allow access to traders to an order entry system, initiate issuance and redemption (i.e., receiving) requests to the custodian module, and manage public keys and private keys for the traders; 000118–000123 “The ledgers created and operated as disclosed herein can be utilized to perform a number of different actions. For example, ledger actions can include one or more of issuance, redemption, acceptance, reversal, removal, sending, enabling, disabling, or placing holds. . .; 000207]; and
NOTE: Ingargiola teaches structure capable of performing “receiving and transmitting one or more tokens” and as reads on the limitation above. The remainder of the limitation, “wherein each token comprises at least a monetary value, a private key of a token-individual key pair, and a token-type information as token elements,” recites the information held in the token and does not change how the token—which is merely information—is received and transmitted. Accordingly, the content of the token does not distinguish the limitation from the prior art.
control circuitry comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory memory storing program instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the secure transaction unit . . . [Devices implementing methods according to these disclosures can include hardware, firmware and/or software, and can take any of a variety of form factors. Typical examples of such form factors include laptops, smart phones, small form factor personal computers, personal digital assistants, rackmount devices, standalone devices, and so on. Functionality described herein also can be embodied in peripherals or add-in cards. Such functionality can also be implemented on a circuit board among different chips or different processes executing in a single device, by way of further example. (000327)]
. . . to cause a direct exchange of one or more tokens with one or more other secure transaction units in the electronic payment transaction system, and to send one or more registration requests including token references to a token reference register of the electronic transaction system for registering the tokens in the electronic payment transaction system [0020; 0075; 00082–00087 “. . .ensuring that the atomic swap changes ownership of the assets. . .”; the transaction flow can include a transaction proposal sent by an application client to specific endorsing peers. The endorsing peers verify the client signature, and execute a chaincode function to simulate the transaction. (0125–0130); 000225 “. . .confirming from custodian A 1546 that the USD ledger 1556 has enough money. . .and confirming that the BTC ledger 1552 of the custodian B 1548 has sufficient BTC. . .can confirm the trade and then the atomic exchange component 1558 can cause the atomic exchange to occur. . .; 000267],
NOTE: The USD and BTC being exchanged in Ingargiola are interpreted as reading on “tokens” in the claim and the exchange of these reads on cross-sending registration requests to update in the ledgers which custodian those tokens are registered to on the ledger.
wherein each token reference comprises the monetary value of a respectively assigned token of the one or more tokens, a public key corresponding to the private key of the token-individual key pair, and the token-type information of the assigned token as token reference elements and wherein within the electronic payment transaction system each token reference is uniquely assigned to a single token and the token reference register stores the token reference without storing the tokens [0055; 0062; 000119 -000120 “. . .A custodian, in one aspect, can create the genesis block and transmit it to an exchange network node. . .The key can be the private key of a trader, a custodian public key, or a key associated with the exchange network node. . .”; 000136; 000218; 000227; 000277].
Regarding claim 2, INGARGIOLA teaches the invention of claim 1. INGARGIOLA further teaches,
wherein the token-type information is an information for uniquely identifying a financial service provider unit in the electronic payment transaction system, wherein the financial service provider unit issued the token [000117; 000258].
Regarding claim 3, INGARGIOLA teaches the invention in claim 1. INGARGIOLA further teaches,
wherein the token-type information is one or more of the following: an international security identification number code; a German securities identification code; a bank code number; a bank identifier number [000117; 000258].
Regarding claim 4, INGARGIOLA teaches the invention in claim 1. INGARGIOLA further teaches,
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to generate one or more token references, especially upon modification commands being processed by the secure transaction unit, the modification commands being one or more of a switch-command, a merge-command and a split-command, wherein the modification commands are only performed for tokens having the same token-type information [00081; 000218; 000277; 000288; 000290].
Regarding claim 5, INGARGIOLA teaches the invention in claim 1. INGARGIOLA further teaches,
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to perform a swap-command for registering a first token having a first token-type information and a second token having a second token-type information in one single registration request [00073; 000175; 000181].
Regarding claim 6, INGARGIOLA teaches the invention of claim 5. INGARGIOLA further teaches,
wherein for performing the swapping command, the control circuitry is configured to: perform a first switch-command on the first token having the first token-type information to obtain a third token having the monetary value of the first token and the first token-type information [00073; 000175; 000181]; and
perform a second switch-command on the second token having the second token-type information to obtain a fourth token having the monetary value of the second token and the second token-type information [00073; 000175; 000181].
Regarding claim 7, INGARGIOLA teaches the invention of claim 6. INGARGIOLA further teaches, wherein the monetary value of the first token equals the monetary value of the second token [00073; 000175; 000181].
Regarding claim 8, INGARGIOLA teaches the invention above. INGARGIOLA further teaches,
wherein the swap-command is executed to obtain tokens of a prioritized token-type information used for a future payment transaction [0009; 000213; 000280].
Regarding claim 9, INGARGIOLA teaches the invention in Claim 1. INGARGIOLA further teaches,
wherein the secure transaction unit is a secure element that is operatively connected to an electronic equipment of a participant in the electronic payment system [000220].
Regarding claim 10, INGARGIOLA teaches the invention in claim 1. INGARGIOLA further teaches,
wherein the secure transaction unit is a secure wallet that is hosted at a service provider unit [0000148; 000153; 000162; 000226].
Response to Remarks
With respect to the interpretation under 112(f) and rejections under 112(a) and 112(b), Applicant asserts on pages 10–11 of Applicant’s remarks that the amendments to remove the elements invoking 112(f) have obviated the interpretation that leads to rejections under 112(a) and 112(b).
Response: The examiner agrees and has withdrawn both the 112(f) interpretation and the resulting rejections under 112(a) and 112(b).
With respect to the rejection of claims 1–10 under § 101, Applicant asserts on pages 11–13 of Applicant’s remarks:
In the Action, the current claims are construed as being directed to fundamental economic principles or practices, i.e. a certain method of organizing human activity, and the rejection concludes that the additional elements of the claims are just generic computer implementation. However, properly construed in light of the specification, the amended claims are directed to an improvement to secure digital token systems that enables offline, peer-to-peer exchanges between secure hardware wallets, while a central token reference register stores only derived token references (monetary value, public key, token type) to prevent double-spending and unauthorized minting, without ever storing the secret token values themselves.
As taught in at least para. [007] of the disclosure, in conventional methods tokens are stored in a centralized or decentralized blockchain/distributed ledger of the payment transaction system, e.g., organized by a central bank unit. For a payment transaction, an ownership of a token record changes in the blockchain for which a lot of information (sender/recipient/amount) is required and/or even published. Sender and recipient of the token need an online access to the blockchain at the time of the transaction.
In contrast, the current claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer-implemented token systems that support secure offline central-bank/tokenized payments across multiple issuers without double-spend and with reduced disclosure of transaction data, not the economic concept of making payments.
This improvement is realized by the particular arrangement of the additional elements of claim 1, including a direct exchange of one or more tokens with one or more other secure transaction units in the electronic payment transaction system, and sending one or more registration requests including token references to a token reference register of the electronic transaction system for registering the tokens in the electronic payment transaction system, wherein each token reference comprises the monetary value of a respectively the assigned token of the one or more tokens, a public key corresponding to the private key of the token-individual key pair, and the token-type information of the assigned token as token reference elements, and wherein within the electronic payment transaction system each token reference is being uniquely assigned to a single token and the token reference register stores the token references without storing the tokens.
These additional elements are not well-understood, routine, and conventional, especially in view of the opposite architecture described in the prior art, such as Ingargiola, which is itself an example of the centralized ledger solution criticized in the background of the current disclosure.
Under MPEP 2106.04(d), claims focused on improved computer security and data-integrity mechanisms are generally not directed to the judicial exceptions, such that the current claims provide a patent eligible solution to a technical problem.
For at least the reasons discussed above, claims 1-10 are patent eligible.
Withdrawal of the rejection is kindly requested.
Response: Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner notes that while the applicant’s specification might describe improvements, to be considered under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, those improvements need to be reflected in the claim. However, the arguments point out aspects of the invention that are not reflected in the claim such as “offline, peer-to-peer exchanges,” the tokens being “secret” tokens, and the intended result of “prevent[ing] double-spending and unauthorized minting.” Although the claims are read in light of the specification, it is incorrect to establish the broadest reasonable interpretation by reading limitations from the specification into the claim. Accordingly, the remarks are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1–10 under § 101, Applicant asserts on pages 11–13 of Applicant’s remarks:
As amended, independent claim 1 requires control circuitry comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory memory storing program instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the secure transaction unit to cause a direct exchange of one or more tokens with one or more other secure transaction units in the electronic payment transaction system, and to send one or more registration requests including token references to a token reference register of the electronic transaction system for registering the tokens in the electronic payment transaction system, wherein each token reference comprises the monetary value of a respectively assigned token of the one or more tokens, a public key corresponding to the private key of the token-individual key pair, and the token-type information of the assigned token as token reference elements, and wherein within the electronic payment transaction system each token reference is uniquely assigned to a single token and the token reference register stores the token references without storing the tokens. There is no similar teaching or suggestion derivable from Ingargiola.
In the rejection, Ingargiola is relied on for finding a teaching of systems and methods that utilize multiple single asset types and blockchain-based ledgers utilized by a custodian to issue a digital representation of assets held by the custodian (Abstract). According to Ingargiola, a centralized ledger is used to perform issuance, redemption, acceptance, reversal, removal, sending, enabling, disabling, or placing holds, by generating new blocks on the blockchain-based ledger that identifies the client and the collateral associated with the token (paras. [00072-79], [000118-123] and [000207]).
As taught in at least para. [007] of the current disclosure, in conventional methods as in Ingargiola tokens are stored in a centralized or decentralized blockchain/distributed ledger of the payment transaction system, e.g., organized by a central bank unit. For a payment transaction, an ownership of a token record changes in the blockchain for which a lot of information (sender/recipient/amount) is required and/or even published. Sender and recipient of the token need an online access to the blockchain at the time of the transaction.
In contrast to Ingargiola, the current claims require a direct exchange of one or more tokens, wherein each token comprises at least a monetary value, a private key of a token-individual key pair, and a token-type information as token elements, between a secure transaction unit and one or more other secure transaction units in the electronic payment transaction system, and further require that the token reference register stores the token references without storing the tokens.
There are no similar teachings or suggestions in the centralized ledger directed method of Ingargiola, as Ingargiola does not teach the secure transaction units receiving and transmitting tokens, but instead stores tokens as part of a block on a blockchain-based ledger. Notably, the asserted “tokens” of Ingargiola are not defined by a private key as an element of the token itself, but only a ledger block is secured by a key. There is no teaching in Ingargiola of a token-individual key pair where the private key is a component of the token stored in a secure transaction unit.
Further, there is no hint in Ingargiola to a separate token-reference register which stores only a derived reference while the token itself remains with a secure transaction unit, as required by amended claim 1.
For at least the reasons discussed above, claim 1 is novel and patentable over Ingargiola. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and are at least patentable therefrom.
Withdrawal of the rejection is kindly requested.
Response: Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks attempt to distinguish Ingargiola on two points. First, that Ingargiola does not teach an “offline” exchange of tokens or that a “direct” exchange as claimed distinguishes Ingargiola from the claimed invention. As noted above, reading “direct” to mean “offline” is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant has not pointed to a specific definition for “direct” that would require reading that term in the claim to mean “offline” or without using a blockchain. Furthermore, even if applicant were to amend the claim to require this feature, the examiner notes that applicant’s specification at 008 points to a prior art reference WO 2020/212331 that could be used to teach this feature.
Second, that the tokens in Ingargiola are patentably distinct from the tokens in the claim because they are not “defined by a private key as an element of the token itself, but only a ledger block secured by a key.” As noted in the rejection above, the private key being an element of the token itself is merely information contained in the token and is not used in any positively recited function performed by the claimed system. Rather, the claim recites only the operations “receiving and transmitting one or more tokens” and “direct exchange of one or more tokens” and the recitations about the content of the token are just that, content. Because the content itself is not utilized in any step, function, or operation, it can be fairly labeled as non-functional descriptive material. Accordingly, applicant has at most articulated a difference that does not amount to patentably distinction because the content of the claimed tokens does not distinguish the claim from the prior art. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
The present invention relates generally to the problem of transferring ownership of any electronic token of value. Several methods have been proposed over the years for dealing with electronic exchange of value tokens, mostly focused on the concept of electronic currency, but so far none of these have allowed for simultaneous anonymous and offline exchange, while at the same time maintaining the ability to track potential misuse. (Angelo)
issuing, by the computer processor, a second financial instrument comprising monetary value and physically attached to a second token device; and causing, by the computer processor, the first and second token devices to engage in peer-to-peer communications with one another, whereby the first and second token devices exchange information relevant to a transaction involving the first and second financial instruments. (Silverman)
In an example, in response to activation of app 205 on two or more computing devices, a near-field communication token may be transmitted among all computing devices with the app activated. Near-field communication is a peer-to-peer protocol in which two devices touch or move within a certain proximity of each other (e.g., two centimeters) to exchange tokens. Examples of tokens that may be exchanged include, but are not limited to, text, uniform resource indicators, business cards, a text token having a format representing a command from a social network, and so forth). In some example implementations, the token can be propagated through one person performing a peer-to-peer action with other people in a group in sequence, or it can be passed from one person to another person in a chain or in a tree-like fashion (e.g., for faster propagation). (Schilit)
leaf tokens are derived from root tokens to enable exchange of the leaf tokens between merchant and consumer or between consumers in a peer-to-peer style blockchain supported transfer protocol. (Veale)
The decentralized crypto token swap platform utilizes smart contracts and protocol implementations to support the peer-to-peer trading of crypto tokens based on different blockchains and different standards (Liu)
the systems and methods described herein can include peer-to-peer cryptographic blockchain 414, virtual currency, and smart contract management. In some such embodiments, the systems and methods described herein can include peer-to-peer cryptographic virtual currency trading for an exchange of one or more virtual tokens for goods or services. (Wang)
In some embodiments, the token exchange and verification can happen locally using peer-to-peer proximity network technologies completely offline from the internet (both from the perimeter reader side and from the user’s side) and hence not requiring Internet connectivity on the user’s mobile communication device 108. (Hoyer)
The link block can include the state of each sync group and nodes which are petitioning to participate in an upcoming bridge consensus operation. The link block contains requests for transfer or exchange of tokens (e.g., credits or stamps) to occur in the bridge consensus operation and the party which is slated to participate in the individual peer-to-peer exchange of tokens. For example, the link block can capture intended token exchanges between nodes of different sync groups. Link blocks can include the anticipated list of known sync groups which may be expected or required to participate in the upcoming bridge consensus operation. (Gorog)
embodiments of the present disclosure provide a system for authenticating peer-to-peer resource exchanges using non-fungible tokens, (Kurian)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. 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 C.F.R. 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick McAtee whose telephone number is (571)272-7575. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:30am - 4:30pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Patrick McAtee
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
1 The previous office action listed the document number of Ingargiola with an incorrect final digit as “WO 2021/046941.” It is corrected here so the final digit is “4” rather than “1.”
Prosecution Insights