DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/01/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 12-14, 23, and 26-28 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, filed 06/01/2026, 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. Applicant has not provided any substantive remarks that need to be addressed. It is not apparent how the amendments achieve the “technical improvements directly within each of claims 1, 9, and 23,” and Applicant has not provided any specific evidence and/or remarks to arrive at such conclusion. Therefore, there are no remarks that need to be addressed here. Please see below for an updated patent eligibility analysis in light of the amendments.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the combination of Seaver et al. U.S. 2023/0289785 in view of Pimlico “Our ERC-20 paymaster is live” on pgs. 10-12, the combination was used to teach that the paymaster is permissionless. However, the remarks regarding Seaver are not directed to the paymaster, but instead, are directed to other elements such as the IVYBoxManager computer program, ServiceFeeERC20 computer program 21, Utility URL, etc., none of which are the paymaster, see at least Figs. 2A-3E. Therefore, it is unclear how the remarks are related to the paymaster in Seaver and Pimlico, and why the combination of Seaver in view of Pimlico would be unacceptable. Furthermore, the remarks appear to assume that the “intermediaries” in Pimlico are the same as the elements disclosed in Seaver, however, the Examiner is interpreting the “intermediaries” to be other types of tokens/currency that are not ERC-20 tokens. Pimlico states “You can now pay for transaction fees purely in ERC-20 tokens like USDC without any intermediaries,” thereby suggesting the “intermediaries” are referring to other types of tokens, and not the other elements in Seaver, as incorrectly assumed in the remarks. Seaver discloses the gas fees being paid in ERC-20 tokens [0071].
The remarks also appear to suggest that Seaver teaches away from a permissionless paymaster because [0100] discloses a preferred embodiment of a paymaster computer program 28 “is preferably not upgradable.” Such disclosure does not suggest that the paymaster cannot be permissionless. Applicant’s assumption that since the paymaster is not upgradeable “to further enhance security against misbehaving entities,” it therefore cannot be permissionless, is made in error because there is no teaching or suggestion in the specification or prior art that a paymaster that is designed to enhance security cannot also be permissionless, or vice versa. This conclusion is based on tenuous assumptions, see end of pg. 11 to top of pg. 12 of the remarks, that is not supported by any substantive evidence other than mere conclusory statements. Furthermore, MPEP 2123(II) also states: “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).” Therefore, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that the limitation that a paymaster 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” does not meaningfully limit how the paymaster is executed, how the paymaster determines whether to process a user operation from the user operation bundle, how the paymaster determines a maximum transaction fee, how the paymaster transfers the maximum transaction fee, how the paymaster determines a total cost of the transaction fee, and/or any other steps/operations by the paymaster. Furthermore, the claimed invention is not directed to how the accounts use the paymaster for transactions, it is directed to account creation. Therefore, such limitation cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 06/01/2026, to independent claims 1, 9, and 23 have overcome the prior art rejections. Therefore, the prior rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kassis et al. U.S. 2025/0238787. Kassis is related to U.S. provisional application No. 63/623,572, filed on 01/22/2024. Any citations noted below to map the limitations to Kassis has been verified to exist within the provisional application with the earlier filing date.
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;
receiving, by an entrypoint contract executed within the chain network, a user operation bundle from an off-chain bundler;
invoking, by the entrypoint contract, a validation function of the permissionless paymaster to determine whether the paymaster will process a user operation from the user operation bundle;
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 during execution of the validation function, a maximum transaction fee for creation of the account, the maximum transaction fee being denominated 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 by the account factory, invoking, by the entrypoint contract, a post-operation function of the paymaster to supply an actual gas used metric, and determining, by the paymaster, using the post-operation function, a total cost of the transaction fee in the non-native cryptocurrency based on the actual gas used metric; 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 and D-H 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. B-C recite limitations that are reasonably categorized under mental processes. Receiving a user operation bundle and invoking a validation function to determine whether the paymaster will process a user operation from the user operation bundle can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.
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 entrypoint contract,” “an off-chain bundler,” “an account factory” and “a paymaster,” are analogous to smart contracts and/or 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 new additional elements: “from an exchange contract executed within the chain network and to the entrypoint contract executed within the chain network,” “a distributed exchange that is executed outside of the chain network,” 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 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 1-5, 8-13, 16, and 23-27 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,” and further in view of Kassis et al. U.S. 2025/0238787 (herein as “Kassis”).
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 during execution of the validation function, a maximum transaction fee for creation of the account, the maximum transaction fee being denominated 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,” since the validation function has been broadly recited, under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, calling the PriceManager is interpreted to be a part of the validation function);
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 by the account factory, […] supply an actual gas used metric, and determining, by the paymaster […] a total cost of the in the non-native cryptocurrency based on the actual gas used metric ([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.
However, Seaver in view of Pimlico do not explicitly teach
receiving, by an entrypoint contract executed within the chain network, a user operation bundle from an off-chain bundler;
invoking, by the entrypoint contract, a validation function of the permissionless paymaster to determine whether the paymaster will process a user operation from the user operation bundle;
invoking, by the entrypoint contract, a post-operation function of the paymaster and using the post-operation function.
Kassis discloses systems and methods for digital identity and account abstraction. Specifically, Kassis discloses
receiving, by an entrypoint contract executed within the chain network, a user operation bundle from an off-chain bundler (Fig. 1 – Bundler 124 is in off-chain environment, [0049] – “Entry point contract 152 may receive bundled user operations from bundler 124”);
invoking, by the entrypoint contract, a validation function of the permissionless paymaster to determine whether the paymaster will process a user operation from the user operation bundle [0079] – “the entry point contract may validate the user operation”;
invoking, by the entrypoint contract, a post-operation function of the paymaster, and using the post-operation function [0088] – “the entry point contract may invoke the post operation function on the paymaster. This may carry out post-operation logic, including for example, logging, notifications, or other cleanup operations.”
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 paymaster with the teachings of an entrypoint contract invoking functions in Kassis. One would be motivated to make this combination to ensure the secure and efficient processing of user operations Kassis, [0049].
Re Claim 2, Seaver in view of Pimlico and Kassis teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Seaver in view of Pimlico and Kassis 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 and Kassis teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Seaver in view of Pimlico and Kassis 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 4, Seaver in view of Pimlico and Kassis teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Seaver in view of Pimlico and Kassis further teach further comprising providing, from an exchange contract executed within the chain network and to the entrypoint contract executed within the chain network, 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,” Kassis, Figure 1 – entry point contract 152 in on chain environment).
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 paymaster with the teachings of the entrypoint contract in Kassis. One would be motivated to make this combination to ensure the secure and efficient processing of user operations Kassis, [0049].
Re Claim 5, Seaver in view of Pimlico and Kassis teach the computer-implemented method of claim 4, and Seaver in view of Pimlico and Kassis further teach further comprising selectively updating the deposit of the native cryptocurrency attributable to the paymaster within the entrypoint contract, 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 contract and the paymaster within the entrypoint contract.
Kassis discloses systems and methods for digital identity and account abstraction. Specifically, Kassis discloses
the entrypoint contract [0048] – “entry point contract 152”;
the paymaster within the entrypoint [0048] – “paymaster contract 156”
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 paymaster with the teachings of the entrypoint contract in Kassis. One would be motivated to make this combination to ensure the secure and efficient processing of user operations Kassis, [0049].
Re Claim 8, Seaver in view of Pimlico and Kassis teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Seaver in view of Pimlico and Kassis 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 smart contracts 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 9-13 and 16 are computer-readable storage medium claims of method claims 1-5 and 8, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as claims 1-5 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 9-13 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 23-27 are system claims of method claims 1-5, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as claims 1-5. 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 23-27 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 Kassis et al. U.S. 2025/0238787 (herein as “Kassis”) 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 Kassis teach the computer-implemented method of claim 5, Seaver in view of Pimlico and Kassis further teach wherein updating the deposit of the native cryptocurrency attributable to the paymaster within the entrypoint contract 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 Kassis 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 Kassis’ 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 Kassis et al. U.S. 2025/0238787 (herein as “Kassis”) 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 Kassis teach the computer-implemented method of claim 5, and Seaver in view of Pimlico and Kassis 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 Kassis 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 Kassis’ 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
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.
/CHRISTINE DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights