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 .
Acknowledgments
The reply filed 12/04/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11-13, 23, and 25-27 have been amended. Claims 17-22 were previously canceled. Claims 1-16 and 23-28 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pgs. 8-9, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-16 and 23-28 have overcome the rejection. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-16 and 23-28 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-16 and 23-28 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, the remarks have referenced multiple case laws without adequately addressing how the claim language itself provides technical improvements to the technical problems in cryptocurrency. The case laws were presented to highlight the known principle that claims achieving technical improvements are patent-eligible, however, drawing a known conclusion and merely applying the same conclusion to the claimed invention without adequate evidence cannot be persuasive.
In response to the remarks referencing [0021-24] of the instant disclosure, Examiner recognizes the technical problems present in cryptocurrency networks. However, the claim language does not reflect any technical solution to address such technical problems. The problems presented in the specification are known problems when users want to transact across different blockchain networks that uses different native cryptocurrencies. However, the scope of the claimed invention is within one chain network and actively uses one type of currency, e.g. non-native cryptocurrency. As constructed, the claimed invention is not a technical solution to the technical problem because 1) the technical problem as disclosed in the instant specification does not exist within a single chain network using one type of cryptocurrency and 2) the technical solution, even if the same technical problem exists within the context of the claim language, is not technical because the paymaster has been generically recited such that it is no more than just a computer program that facilitates a transaction. Even though the claim language does recite “to account for a transaction fee for creation of the account in a native cryptocurrency provided from a centralized source of native cryptocurrency,” this does not suggest that this is a transaction between two different blockchain networks using two different native cryptocurrencies.
In response to the remarks referencing [0069] of the instant disclosure, multiple technical improvements have been listed, however, such disclosed list has been presented in a conclusory manner without any details as to how such improvement is accomplished see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Similarly, it is not apparent from the claim language how the paymaster is able to provide “users with a seamless, unrestricted transaction experience on a chain network without the prerequisite of holding any cryptocurrency that is native to the chain network.” Performing the claimed method steps by the paymaster does not reflect the disclosed improvement because the paymaster has been generically recited such that it does not appear using the paymaster is anything more than a computer program that facilitates a transaction. The remarks and instant specification appear to suggest that the paymaster itself is contributing to the technical improvement, however, the claimed invention does not indicate any special programming, technical feature, and/or configuration of the paymaster that would suggest such an improvement.
Claims 1-16 and 23-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Please see below for an updated analysis in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to Seaver et al. U.S. 2023/0289785 disclosing “a transaction fee for creation of the account” have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, Seaver discloses in Fig. 2A, S3a2 - “transfer sufficient tokens to pay for gas,” i.e. transaction fee, after creating a box, i.e. an account, to paymaster 28, [0096] – “The tokens needed for gas are passed to the Paymaster computer program 28.” Therefore, the gas is the transaction fee for creation of the account. Furthermore, Fig. 2A, S2 – the sender, i.e. user, is providing the initial tokens. Therefore, Seaver discloses “the user providing an amount of non-native cryptocurrency to the paymaster to account for a transaction fee for creation of the account.” The remarks appear to suggest that since Seaver discloses the gas is provided after creation of the sender’s box that it does not read on the claim language. However, the remarks have not provided any further evidence as to why that would not read on the current claimed invention especially since the claimed invention is not specific as to when the user provides “an amount of non-native cryptocurrency to the paymaster to account for a transaction fee for creation of the account.” Therefore, the remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment, “executing, within the chain network, a paymaster that is permissionless…” has overcome the current prior art of record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pimlico “Our ERC-20 paymaster is live.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-16 and 23-28 fall into at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A.1:
The limitations of independent claim 1 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. Independent claims 9 and 23 recite similar distinguishing features as claim 1, therefore the following eligibility analysis shall apply to both independent claims 9 and 23. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
executing, within the chain network, a paymaster that is permissionless, such that any account in the chain network can use the paymaster for one or more transactions without requiring permission to use the paymaster;
creating, by an account factory executed in the chain network, an account for a user within the chain network, the user providing an amount of non-native cryptocurrency to the paymaster to account for a transaction fee for creation of the account in a native cryptocurrency provided from a centralized source of native cryptocurrency;
determining, by the paymaster, a maximum transaction fee for creation of the account, the maximum transaction fee being provided in a non-native cryptocurrency;
transferring, by the paymaster, the maximum transaction fee from a source of non-native cryptocurrency to the paymaster;
after creation of the account, determining, by the paymaster, a total cost of the transaction fee in the non-native cryptocurrency; and
transferring a refund amount from the paymaster to the account based on the total cost, the refund amount being in the non-native cryptocurrency.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, A-F recite limitations that are reasonably categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the bolded, claimed limitations can be grouped as commercial or legal interactions in the form of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Paying a fee for creating an account is analogous to paying a fee for a service, and is therefore a sales transaction, i.e. sales activity or behavior.
Claims 1, 9, and 23 recite at least one abstract idea. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.2.
Step 2A.2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional element(s) not in bold above.
The additional element of A (“executing…”) is no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Executing a paymaster to perform the abstract idea is generally linking the abstract idea to a software program.
The additional elements in claim 1, such as “an account factory” and “a paymaster,” are analogous to smart contracts, i.e. computer program code. Such additional elements, along with “a chain network,” are all recited at a high-level of generality. Similarly, claims 9 and 23 recite “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” “one or more processors,” “a computing device,” and “a computer-readable storage device” as additional elements. These additional elements are also all recited at a high-level of generality. Therefore, the abstract idea recited in limitations A-F are merely software instructions that as an ordered combination with the additional elements amount to a computer that is programmed to carry out the abstract idea. When the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, claims 1, 9, and 23 amount to no more than mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 23 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
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 considerations from Step 2A.2 are re-evaluated. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1, 9, and 23 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2, 10, and 24 provides further context on the amount of non-native cryptocurrency. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the limitations merely elaborate on the abstract idea identified above. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3, 11, and 25 is interpreted to mean provisioning of an allowance amount via the function. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Providing an allowance amount is merely elaborating on the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 8 and 16 provide further context on the paymaster. The paymaster is still recited at a high-level of generality. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 4-7, 12-15, and 26-28 recite the following additional elements: “from an exchange contract executed within the chain network and to an entrypoint executed within the chain network,” “a distributed exchange that is executed outside of the chain network,” “the entrypoint contract,” and “an off-chain worker.” The additional elements are analogous to computer program code (see at least [0029], [0032] of the specification), and are all recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitations A-F are merely software instructions that as an ordered combination with the additional elements amount to a computer that is programmed to carry out the abstract idea. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application such that the abstract idea amounts 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 1-16 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8-11, 16, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seaver et al. U.S. 2023/0289785 (herein as “Seaver”) in view of Pimlico “Our ERC-20 paymaster is live.”
Re Claim 1, Seaver discloses a computer-implemented method for account creation within a chain network, comprising:
executing, within the chain network, a paymaster […] ([0065-66], Fig. 2A – paymaster 28);
creating, by an account factory executed in the chain network, an account for a user within the chain network, the user providing an amount of non-native cryptocurrency to the paymaster to account for a transaction fee for creation of the account in a native cryptocurrency provided from a centralized source of native cryptocurrency ([0102] – “creates a new address (box) on the blockchain network in step S1…the creation of a new (empty) QR code which is ready to have funds deposited into it. Step S1 can be performed using the Utility URL 17 or by a third-party or custom utility,” therefore, a box is analogous to an account, Fig. 2A, S3a2 – transfer sufficient tokens, i.e. non-native cryptocurrency, to pay for gas after createBox, Fig. 2A, S3a – tokens are from the sender, i.e. user, [0096] – “The tokens needed for gas are passed to the Paymaster computer program 28”);
determining, by the paymaster, a maximum transaction fee for creation of the account, the maximum transaction fee being provided in a non-native cryptocurrency [0104] – “in step S3a6, the Paymaster computer program 28 calls to the PriceManager computer program 23 to determine the amount of required gas fee”;
transferring, by the paymaster, the maximum transaction fee from a source of non-native cryptocurrency to the paymaster ([0104] – “the IVYBoxManager computer program 27 calls to the Paymaster computer program 28 to transfer sufficient tokens to cover the required gas fee,” i.e. transfers to the paymaster, Fig. 2A, S3a8 – paymaster transfers payment tokens to buy WETH, i.e. transfers by the paymaster, [0063] – “the IVYBoxManager computer program 27…which itself will have, in this example, an Ethereum address in which various ERC-20 tokens belonging to multiple users will be held,” i.e. a source of non-native cryptocurrency);
after creation of the account, determining a total cost of the in the non-native cryptocurrency ([0104] – “in step S3a6, the Paymaster computer program 28 calls to the PriceManager computer program 23 to determine the amount of required gas fee…In step S3a8, the Paymaster computer program 28 calls to the DEXManager computer program 24 with the amount of tokens it needs to use to acquire the wrapped ETH (WETH) required to cover the gas fee,” thereby suggesting the “amount of tokens” is non-native cryptocurrency); and
transferring a refund amount from the paymaster to the account based on the total cost, the refund amount being in the non-native cryptocurrency ([0104], Fig. 2A, S3a13 – after paying the gas fee, “deposit remaining (i.e. refund) payment token,” i.e. non-native cryptocurrency balance to box, i.e. account).
However, Seaver does not expressly disclose
a paymaster that is permissionless, such that any account in the chain network can use the paymaster for one or more transactions without requiring permission to use the paymaster.
Pimlico discloses
a paymaster that is permissionless, such that any account in the chain network can use the paymaster for one or more transactions without requiring permission to use the paymaster pg. 1 – “ERC-20 Paymaster – the first fully-audited and permissionless ERC-20 Paymaster in the ecosystem.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seaver’s paymaster to the teachings of a paymaster that is permissionless in Pimlico. One would be motivated to make this combination so users can pay transaction fees without any intermediaries Pimlico, pg. 1, 3rd sentence.
Re Claim 2, Seaver in view of Pimlico teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Seaver in view of Pimlico further teach discloses wherein the amount of non-native cryptocurrency is provided from a non-native cryptocurrency source that is provided in the chain network and that is controlled by a provider of the non-native cryptocurrency (Seaver, [0063] – “A sending user 1 (i.e. provider of the non-native cryptocurrency) who wishes to initiate a transaction using a blockchain network 16 (i.e. chain network) (e.g., to send ERC-20 tokens to a recipient user 2) utilizing the Utility URL 17 will first navigate to that website which presents the sending user 1 with the Utility URL graphical user interface shown in Fig. 3A,” “The sender’s box 11 is essentially a sub-ledger within the IVYBoxManager computer program 27…which itself will have, in this example, an Ethereum address in which various ERC-20 tokens belonging to multiple users will be held,” i.e. a non-native cryptocurrency source).
Re Claim 3, Seaver in view of Pimlico teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Seaver in view of Pimlico further teach wherein the paymaster calls a function during execution of a paymaster validation to an allowance amount in the non-native cryptocurrency (Seaver, [0105] – “This can be done, for example, by a direct call to the Paymaster computer program 28 which interacts (i.e. calls a function) with the DEXManager computer program 24 for determining a price of gas for a specified transfer amount,” i.e. an allowance amount).
Re Claim 8, Seaver in view of Pimlico teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Seaver in view of Pimlico further teach wherein the paymaster is provided and deployed to the chain network by an enterprise that provides the non-native cryptocurrency (Seaver, [0066] – “…Paymaster computer program 28 are smartcontracts which adapt the functionality of the blockchain network,” the blockchain network being an Ethereum blockchain network, and Ethereum provides the ERC-20 tokens, i.e. enterprise that provides the non-native cryptocurrency [0063]).
Claims 9-11 and 16 are computer-readable storage medium claims of method claims 1-3 and 8, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as claims 1-3 and 8. Furthermore, Seaver discloses in [0030] - “a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer program code that is available in a blockchain network and which, upon being executed by one or more processors, facilitates execution” of the invention. Therefore, claims 9-11 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 23-25 are system claims of method claims 1-3, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as claims 1-3. Furthermore, Seaver discloses in [0029] – “The system comprises one or more hardware processors configured by computer program code,” [0030] - “a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer program code that is available in a blockchain network and which, upon being executed by one or more processors, facilitates execution” of the invention. Therefore, claims 23-25 are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 4-5, 12-13, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seaver et al. U.S. 2023/0289785 (herein as “Seaver”) in view of Pimlico “Our ERC-20 paymaster is live” as applied to claims 1, 9, and 23 above, and further in view of Boudjemaa “Entrypoint v0.70: The New Era of Account Abstraction.”
Re Claim 4, Seaver in view of Pimlico teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Seaver in view of Pimlico further teach further comprising providing, from an exchange contract executed within the chain network and to […], a deposit of a native cryptocurrency attributable to the paymaster (Seaver, Fig. 2A, S3a10-12, [0104] – “In step S3a10, the DEXManager computer program 24 calls to the existing WETHContract computer program 25 (i.e. exchange contract) on the Ethereum blockchain network to convert the WETH to ETH. In step S3a11, this amount of ETH is returned to the Paymaster computer program 28 (i.e. attributable to a paymaster) and paid to the GSN by calling to the RelayHubGSN computer program 28”).
However, Seaver in view of Pimlico do not explicitly teach
an entrypoint executed within the chain network.
Boudjemaa discloses the role of entrypoint. Specifically, Boudjemaa discloses
an entrypoint executed within the chain network pg. 10, Structural Adjustments, Update in v0.7.0 – “Entrypoint v0.7.0 introduces a separation between the off-chain and on-chain representations of UserOperations,” thereby suggesting the entrypoint can be executed within the chain network.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seaver in view of Pimlico’s RelayHubGSN computer program to an entrypoint in Boudjemaa. One would be motivated to make this combination to simplify transactions, thereby enhancing user experience, and boost security for safer blockchain interactions Boudjemaa, pg. 2, Key Features of Entrypoint.
Re Claim 5, Seaver in view of Pimlico and Boudjemaa teach the computer-implemented method of claim 4, and Seaver in view of Pimlico and Boudjemaa further teach further comprising selectively updating the deposit of the native cryptocurrency attributable to the paymaster within the entrypoint, updating comprising:
transferring an exchange amount of non-native cryptocurrency from the paymaster to a distributed exchange that is executed outside of the chain network (Seaver, Fig. 2A, S3a8 – transfer payment tokens, i.e. non-native cryptocurrency, to buy WETH from Paymaster to DEX Manager, [0073] – “The DEXManager computer program 24 requests that a decentralized exchange (e.g. Uniswap) withdraw the requisite amount of ERC-20 tokens from the sender’s box to pay for the requisite amount of ETH,” Uniswap is analogous to a distributed exchange, [0066] – “the Uniswap computer program 26…are third-party web-based utilities which do not reside on the blockchain network (i.e. executed outside of the chain network”);
receiving an exchange amount of native cryptocurrency from the distributed exchange (Seaver, Fig. 2A, S3a11 – deposit ETH, i.e. native cryptocurrency, to Paymaster, i.e. Paymaster receives the exchange amount of native cryptocurrency, [0104] – “the DEXManager computer program 24 calls to the Uniswap computer program 26 to sell the tokens for the required WETH on the decentralized exchange,” therefore, the WETH, which is converted to ETH, originated from the decentralized exchange); and
providing at least a portion of the exchange amount of native cryptocurrency […] to update the deposit of the native cryptocurrency attributable to the paymaster […] (Seaver, Fig. 2A, S3a11 – deposit ETH, i.e. providing the native cryptocurrency, to Paymaster).
However, Seaver in view of Pimlico do not explicitly teach
the entrypoint and the paymaster within the entrypoint.
Boudjemaa discloses the role of entrypoint. Specifically, Boudjemaa discloses
the entrypoint pg. 2, The Role of Entrypoint – “This smart contract, consistently deployed at the same address on every chain, streamlines how transactions are executed, embodying the essence of Account Abstraction”;
the paymaster within the entrypoint pg. 4, Key Highlights of Entrypoint v0.6 – “Enhanced Paymaster Support: The update offered richer functionality for Paymasters, enabling diverse ways to handle transaction fees and promoting gasless transactions.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Seaver in view of Pimlico’s automated blockchain address creation and transfer with the teachings of entrypoint in Boudjemaa. One would be motivated to make this combination to simplify transactions, thereby enhancing user experience, and boost security for safer blockchain interactions Boudjemaa, pg. 2, Key Features of Entrypoint.
Claims 12-13 are computer-readable storage medium claims of method claims 4-5, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as claims 4-5. Therefore, claims 12-13 are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 26-27 are system claims of method claims 4-5, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as claims 4-5. Therefore, claims 26-27 are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 6, 14, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seaver et al. U.S. 2023/0289785 (herein as “Seaver”) in view of Pimlico “Our ERC-20 paymaster is live” and further in view of Boudjemaa “Entrypoint v0.70: The New Era of Account Abstraction” as applied to claims 5, 13, and 27 above, and further in view of Duane et al. U.S. 2023/0045946 (herein as “Duane”).
Re Claim 6, Seaver in view of Pimlico and Boudjemaa teach the computer-implemented method of claim 5, Seaver in view of Pimlico and Boudjemaa further teach wherein updating the deposit of the native cryptocurrency attributable to the paymaster within the entrypoint is executed in response to an off-chain worker determining a gas fee […] (Seaver, [0069] – “obtains the price of gas fees through a direct calculation or from a third party software utility (e.g., ChainLink), and calculates the amount of gas fees needed,” ChainLink is analogous to an off-chain worker).
However, Seaver in view of Pimlico and Boudjemaa do not explicitly teach
determining that a balance of the deposit is less than a threshold balance.
Duane discloses peer-to-peer data object transfer and state management. Specifically, Duane discloses
determining that a balance of the deposit is less than a threshold balance ([0068] – “In some examples, such transfers can be based at least in part on determinations that the balance of the stored balance (i.e. deposit) falls below or otherwise satisfies a threshold”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Seaver in view of Pimlico and Boudjemaa’s automated blockchain address creation and transfer with the teachings of determining a balance of the stored balance falls below a threshold in Duane. One would be motivated to make this combination to ensure that there are sufficient funds to cover any transaction costs/fees.
Claim 14 is the computer-readable storage medium claim of method claim 6. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 6. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons above.
Claim 28 is the system claim of method claim 6. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 6. Therefore, claim 28 is rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seaver et al. U.S. 2023/0289785 (herein as “Seaver”) in view of Pimlico “Our ERC-20 paymaster is live” and further in view of Boudjemaa “Entrypoint v0.70: The New Era of Account Abstraction” as applied to claims 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Morais U.S. 2023/0136805.
Re Claim 7, Seaver in view of Pimlico and Boudjemaa teach the computer-implemented method of claim 5, and Seaver in view of Pimlico and Boudjemaa further teach further comprising, in response to determining, by an off-chain worker, a gas fee […] (Seaver, [0069] – “obtains the price of gas fees through a direct calculation or from a third party software utility (e.g., ChainLink), and calculates the amount of gas fees needed,” ChainLink is analogous to an off-chain worker),
updating the gas fee […] with the paymaster (Seaver, [0070] – “communicates the amount…needed for the gas fees to the Paymaster computer program 28”).
However, Seaver in view of Pimlico and Boudjemaa do not explicitly teach
determining an exchange rate between the native cryptocurrency and the non-native cryptocurrency has changed by a threshold amount, updating the exchange rate.
Morais discloses dynamic execution of distributed records based on trigger conditions. Specifically, Morais discloses
determining an exchange rate between the native cryptocurrency and the non-native cryptocurrency has changed by a threshold amount, updating the exchange rate ([0022] – “the smart contract may instead be executed…This may occur if the exchange rate falls over a threshold amount or percentage,” [0037] – “When a smart contract and/or other transaction is generated, a record may be required to be generated, updated, and maintained on blockchain 122,” thereby suggesting updating the exchange rate).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Seaver in view of Pimlico and Boudjemaa’s automated blockchain address creation and transfer with the teachings of determining an exchange rate has changed by a threshold and updating the record in Morais. One would be motivated to make the combination to allow live, real-time, near real-time and/or dynamic data associated with current and/or past exchange rates to be determined and monitored, thereby enabling currency conversions when exchange rates are more favorable Morais, [0017], [0019].
Claim 15 is the computer-readable storage medium claim of method claim 7. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698