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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 28-42 in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 43-52 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subcombinations, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/06/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 02/03/2024 was considered. An initialed copy of the Form PTO-1449 is enclosed herewith.
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to the claims originally filed on 05/06/2026.
Claims 28-52 were newly introduced.
Claims 1-27 were canceled.
Claims 43-52 were withdrawn.
Claims 28-42 were examined.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite the conjunction “and/or”. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, this conjunction is “used as a function word to indicate that two words or expressions are to be taken together or individually”1. Therefore, from the patentability perspective, the claims offer two plausible constructions when they recite elements or functions/steps as “A and/or B”. The claim scope could be narrowly interpreted to include elements A and B together, but the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation encompasses the interpretation of the claim scope as being directed to A or B, therefore, from the prior art perspective, the claims can be anticipated by references reciting either A or B. Examiner notes that while the entirety of the claim language was Examined for compact prosecution purposes, this effort shouldn’t be understood as providing patentable weight to language that, under BRI, carries none.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This Application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“secure execution unit ” followed by the function “for managing digital coin data sets; unit is adapted to exchange digital coin data sets with other coin managing units; additionally adapted to check a first requirement and/or a second requirement; ” (Claim 28)
“secure execution unit ” followed by the function “checks” (Claim 31)
“secure execution unit ” followed by the function “stores and/or executes” (Claim 35)
“secure execution unit ” followed by the function “transmits” (Claim 40)
“secure execution unit ” followed by the function “evaluates and checks” (Claim 42)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 28-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
According to MPEP 2106 II, It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. Further, MPEP 2103 I C establishes that the subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. Regarding the independent claims, claim 28 recites “wherein the first requirement and the second requirement are stored in the coin managing unit as requirement data elements”; “the first requirement and the second requirement pertain to the same check criterion”; “wherein the second requirement is an increase of the first requirement”; “the second requirement is to be checked for a different exchange direction than the first requirement”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05.
With respect to the Eligibility Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo two-part test of the subject matter eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106), in the instant case, claims 28-42 are directed to a “unit”. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Following step 2A, prong one of the analysis, the language of the independent claims reciting an abstract idea are marked in bold below:
a. a secure execution unit for managing digital coin data sets, wherein the secure execution unit is adapted to exchange digital coin data sets with other coin managing units in transactions and to transmit registration requests to a coin register; and at least one digital coin data set;b. wherein the secure execution unit is additionally adapted to check a first requirement and/or a second requirement; wherein the first requirement and the second requirement are stored in the coin managing unit as requirement data elements; and the first requirement and the second requirement pertain to the same check criterion, wherein the second requirement is an increase of the first requirement and/or the second requirement is to be checked for a different exchange direction than the first requirement.
Therefore, the portions highlighted in bold above recite intermediary settlement, which is an abstract idea grouped within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A. The claims are grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity because the steps recited describe the fundamental economic practice of managing and exchanging value representations (i.e. coins). Additionally, the claims are also grouped within mental processes because the steps recited describe verifying requirements, which is a concept that can be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. In situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II). Thus, the language identified in the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings were considered as a single abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2A, prong two of the analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element(s) of the claims include: secure execution unit, digital coin data set. Specifically, with respect to using secure execution unit to perform the recited steps/functions, this additional element perform the steps or functions such as: “exchange… sets… and… transmit… requests…”, “check… requirement(s)”. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which only serves to use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional element(s) of digital coin data set amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, following the analysis of step 2A, prong two, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B of the analysis, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional computer elements, such as secure execution unit, digital coin data set, digital coin data set. The secure execution unit performs the steps/functions of “exchange… sets… and… transmit… requests…”, “check… requirement(s)”, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea of intermediary settlement. The additional element(s) of digital coin data set amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of intermediary settlement. Therefore, the independent claims are not eligible.
Examiner notes that, for elements recited in the dependent claims which were previously analyzed as additional elements of the independent claims above (i.e. secure execution unit, digital coin data set), the assessment of these elements under step 2A and step 2B for the dependent claims is inherited from the analysis of the independent claims and omitted for brevity, unless noted by Examiner below. Dependent claims 29-42 further recite the following additional language, in which elements which merely further define the identified abstract idea are marked in bold below:
c) wherein the second requirement can be selected by a user as an increase of the first requirement; wherein the first requirement is defined in advance by an issuer of the coin managing unit;d) wherein the first requirement is a receipt requirement and the second requirement is a transmission requirement;e) wherein the secure execution unit checks a plurality of, first and/or second, requirements for the transaction, and/or the secure execution unit checks the first and the second requirement one after the other or only checks the second requirement, which comprises the first requirement; and/or at least one reference quadruple pertains to the check criterion, comprising a first receipt requirement and a second increased receipt requirement and a first transmission requirement and an increased second transmission requirement;f) wherein the second increased requirement comprises: a numerical value that is increased with regard to the check compared to the first requirement, at least one additional non-permissible comparison value, or a selection or restriction of the permissible comparison values; g) wherein the transmission requirement differs from the receipt requirement; and/or the transmission requirement completely restricts or partially restricts the transmission of coin data sets to exactly one recipient, exactly one recipient group or to a plurality of recipients and/or recipient groups; and/or the receipt requirement completely restricts or partially restricts the receipt of coin data sets to exactly one sender, exactly one sender group or a plurality of senders and/or sender groups; and/or the check criterion is the transaction partner of the transaction, in its role as a sender or recipient of coin data sets; h) wherein the first and the second requirements are requirements for conditional transactions, wherein requirements for conditional transactions contain a type of condition and/or a type of conditional transaction which is permissible for the coin managing unit. ; i) wherein the secure execution unit stores a conditional transaction when the requirements for conditional transactions are met; and/or the secure execution unit executes a conditional, stored, transaction only when a condition is met, an additional transaction request is received for a transaction which falls under the stored conditional transaction, and/or a conditional transaction comprises a temporal condition, an external triggering event as a condition and/or a security value as a condition; j) wherein the first and the second requirements or an additional requirement is an amount requirement: a maximum value for the amount of the coin data sets to be transmitted and/or for the amount of the coin data sets to be received, or a maximum value or a minimum value for a total amount of coin data sets stored in the coin managing unit, or a maximum value for a sum of transaction amounts of transactions executed within a time period; k) wherein, furthermore, one or more of the following data elements are stored: a unique coin managing unit identifier, and/or a public coin managing unit key of an asymmetrical key pair; optionally a secret coin managing unit key of the asymmetrical key pair; and/or a coin managing unit certificate, which comprises the coin deposit identifier and/or the public coin deposit key as certified content; l) wherein at least one requirement is stored in a partially freely readable manner, the first or second requirement; wherein a readable portion and a non-readable portion of the at least partially freely readable requirement are present; and wherein the two portions are stored in different data elements, or stored in a common data element in a non-readable manner, and additionally the readable portion is stored in a separate freely readable data element; m) wherein the first and/or the second requirement is a counter-performance requirement, wherein the counter-performance is provided in response to at least one received coin data set as performance, in the response data to the sender of the received coin data set;n) wherein the secure execution unit for managing the coin data sets transmits transaction register data to a transaction register, wherein the transaction register data comprise a unique transaction identifier, a transaction amount, a coin managing unit identifier of the sender, a coin managing unit identifier of the recipient, and the register reference of the coin data set in the coin register, and/or transmits registration requests to the coin register, which comprises at least one register reference of a coin data set previously registered in the coin register and a register reference of a coin data set to be registered in the coin register;o) wherein the coin managing unit is a local coin managing unit, or is a server-based coin managing unit, which either comprises its own secure execution unit for the user of the coin managing unit, or comprises a common secure execution unit for a plurality of users, in a coin deposit managing unit with coin deposits of the users; p) wherein the secure execution unit, to manage the coin data sets in a transaction with an additional coin managing unit, evaluates a received data element of the additional coin managing unit, wherein the additional data elements completely or partially comprise a requirement of the additional coin managing unit, and the secure execution unit checks the requirement of the additional coin managing unit for the transaction.
With respect to claim 29, the claim recites item c) above, language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the alternative requirements are (i.e. the description of requirements). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediary settlement identified in the analysis of independent claim 28. Therefore, this language does not significantly alter the analysis with respect to the independent claim 28. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims.
With respect to claim 30, the claim recites item d) above, language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the alternative requirements are (i.e. the description of requirements). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediary settlement identified in the analysis of independent claim 28. Therefore, this language does not significantly alter the analysis with respect to the independent claim 28. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claim 31, Item e) above introduces the additional elements/functions of check additional requirements. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediary settlement identified in the analysis of independent claim 28. Therefore, this language does not significantly alter the analysis with respect to the independent claim 28. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 32, the claim recites item f) above, language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what a requirement "comprises" (i.e. value(s)). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediary settlement identified in the analysis of independent claim 28. Therefore, this language does not significantly alter the analysis with respect to the independent claim 28. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims.
With respect to claim 33, the claim recites item g) above, language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what transmission requirement is (i.e. differs from, restricts) and what the check criterion is (i.e. partner). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediary settlement identified in the analysis of independent claim 28. Therefore, this language does not significantly alter the analysis with respect to the independent claim 28. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims.
With respect to claim 34, the claim recites item h) above, language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the requirements are/contain. Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediary settlement identified in the analysis of independent claim 28. Therefore, this language does not significantly alter the analysis with respect to the independent claim 28. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims.
With respect to claim 352, the claim recites item i) above, language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the unit stores (i.e. transactions) and what a transaction "comprises" (i.e. the description of conditions). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediary settlement identified in the analysis of independent claim 28. Therefore, this language does not significantly alter the analysis with respect to the independent claim 28. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims.
With respect to claim 36, the claim recites item j) above, language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what requirements are. Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediary settlement identified in the analysis of independent claim 28. Therefore, this language does not significantly alter the analysis with respect to the independent claim 28. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims.
With respect to claim 37, the claim recites item k) above, language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the stored data is (i.e. identifiers, keys). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediary settlement identified in the analysis of independent claim 28. Therefore, this language does not significantly alter the analysis with respect to the independent claim 28. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims.
With respect to claim 38, the claim recites item l) above, language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the requirements are and the manner data is stored. Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediary settlement identified in the analysis of independent claim 28. Therefore, this language does not significantly alter the analysis with respect to the independent claim 28. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims.
With respect to claim 393, the claim recites item m) above, language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the requirements are. Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediary settlement identified in the analysis of independent claim 28. Therefore, this language does not significantly alter the analysis with respect to the independent claim 28. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims.
With respect to claim 40, the claim recites item n) above, language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what transaction register data comprises (i.e. identifiers, amount and references) and/or what a register comprises (i.e. references). The claims further recite statements directed to intended use by describing transmitting data. Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediary settlement identified in the analysis of independent claim 28. Therefore, this language does not significantly alter the analysis with respect to the independent claim 28. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 41, the claim recites item o) above, language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what unit is (i.e. description of a unit) and comprises (i.e. unit or units). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediary settlement identified in the analysis of independent claim 28. Therefore, this language does not significantly alter the analysis with respect to the independent claim 28. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims.
With respect to claim 42, the claim recites item p) above, language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to intended use by describing evaluating a received data element and checking requirements. Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediary settlement identified in the analysis of independent claim 28. Therefore, this language does not significantly alter the analysis with respect to the independent claim 28. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Therefore, while the additional language c)-p of dependent claims 29-42 slightly modify the analysis provided with respect to independent claim 28, these additional elements/functions are insufficient to render the dependent claims eligible, as detailed above. Therefore, these dependent claims are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 28-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 recites language interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, such as “secure execution unit for managing digital coin data sets; unit is adapted to exchange digital coin data sets with other coin managing units; additionally adapted to check a first requirement and/or a second requirement; ”. Since the disclosure is inadequate to support the limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claim is being rejected for lack of written description as the disclosure is devoid of any structure for performing the claimed function. Dependent claims 29-42 are also rejected since they depend on claim 28.
Claim 31 recites language interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, such as “secure execution unit checks”. Since the disclosure is inadequate to support the limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claim is being rejected for lack of written description as the specification does not describe this structure with sufficient detail.
Claim 35 recites language interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, such as “secure execution unit stores and/or executes”. Since the disclosure is inadequate to support the limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claim is being rejected for lack of written description as the specification does not describe this structure with sufficient detail.
Claim 40 recites language interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, such as “secure execution unit transmits”. Since the disclosure is inadequate to support the limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claim is being rejected for lack of written description as the specification does not describe this structure with sufficient detail.
Claim 42 recites language interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, such as “secure execution unit evaluates and checks”. Since the disclosure is inadequate to support the limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claim is being rejected for lack of written description as the specification does not describe this structure with sufficient detail.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 28-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 28 recites the claim limitation “secure execution unit for managing digital coin data sets; unit is adapted to exchange digital coin data sets with other coin managing units; additionally adapted to check a first requirement and/or a second requirement”, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure for performing the claimed function. Specifically, the disclosure does recite further functional aspects of the "secure execution unit" but does not recite structural aspects of the "secure execution unit". Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Dependent claims 29-42 are also rejected since they depend on claim 28.
Claim 28 recites “the same check criterion” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim. Dependent claims 29-42 are also rejected since they depend on claims 28, respectively.
Claim 31 recites the claim limitation “secure execution unit checks”, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may address this issue following the avenues described in conjunction with the rejection of independent claim 28 above.
Claim 31 recites “the transaction” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claims 31 and 33 recite the language “the check criterion” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claims.
Claim 32 recites “the permissible comparison values” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 33 recites “the transmission of coin data sets / the receipt of coin data sets” in lines 4 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 33 recites “the check criterion” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 33 recites “the transaction partner” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the claim limitation “secure execution unit stores and/or executes”, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may address this issue following the avenues described in conjunction with the rejection of independent claim 28 above.
Claim 36 recites “the amount of the coin data sets to be transmitted/received” in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 37 recites “the coin deposit identifier” in line 6. This language is unclear as the term "partially freely" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "partially freely" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For Examination purposes, Examiner interprets the language as "readable".
Claim 37 recites “the public coin deposit key” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 38 recites “wherein at least one requirement is stored in a partially freely readable manner” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 38 recites “the at least partially freely readable requirement ” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 39 recites “the sender” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 39 recites “the received coin data set” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the claim limitation “secure execution unit transmits”, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may address this issue following the avenues described in conjunction with the rejection of independent claim 28 above.
Claim 40 recites “the sender” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 40 recites “the recipient” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 40 recites “the register reference” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 41 recites “the user” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 42 recites the claim limitation “secure execution unit evaluates and checks”, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may address this issue following the avenues described in conjunction with the rejection of independent claim 28 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 28-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Melika et al. (US 2019/0325405 A1), hereinafter Melika.
With respect to claim 28, Melika teaches a coin managing unit (see Fig. 8, paragraph [0040]: “FIG. 8 is a block diagram of an environment in which secure bitcoin storage services can be implemented. The environment includes a user 801, user's bitcoins 803, a bitcoin service provider such as a wallet 805, a user's device(s) 809, and a security module 810. The user device(s) 809 can be, for example, a smart phone, tablet computer, notebook computer, or any other form of mobile processing device. Each of the aforementioned computer systems can include one or more distinct physical computers and/or other processing devices which, in the case of multiple devices, can be connected to each other through one or more wired and/or wireless networks.”) (System and method for rendering virtual currency related services) comprising:
a secure execution unit for managing digital coin data sets, wherein the secure execution unit is adapted to exchange digital coin data sets with other coin managing units in transactions and to transmit registration requests to a coin register (see Fig. 7, paragraph [0037]: “FIG. 7 is a block diagram of an environment in which a bitcoin trading platform can be implemented. The environment includes a seller and a buyer (also referred to as “customer” or “consumer”). The third party can be, for example, an arbitrator. An arbitrator is an entity that monitors a transaction between the seller and the buyer. In some embodiments, a transaction may not be completed without an approval from the arbitrator. The environment also includes the Bitcoin Trading Platform having a bitcoin transaction clearing application that acts as a clearing house to clear a bitcoin transaction by sending the bitcoin from the seller to the buyer, according to various embodiments. Each of the aforementioned computer systems can include one or more distinct physical computers and/or other processing devices which, in the case of multiple devices, can be connected to each other through one or more wired and/or wireless networks. All of the aforementioned devices are coupled to each other through a network, which can be or include the Internet and one or more wireless networks (e.g., a WIFI network and or a cellular telecommunications network).”); and
at least one digital coin data set (see paragraph [0041]: “Bitcoins can be stored securely in a number of ways. In some embodiments, bitcoins can be stored securely using multiple signatures, where multiple entities are required to approve, e.g., sign, in order to access the bitcoins. For example, to access bitcoins of a user 801, the user 801 and the wallet 805 may have to sign together. In another, user's two different devices (smartphone/desktop) may have to approve before the user 801 can access the bitcoins 803.”; paragraph [0042]: “In some embodiments, bitcoin can be stored securely by storing the bitcoins using a security module 810, such as crypto-cards. In this solution, the bitcoin's private key is encrypted by the key in the security module 810. The security module 810 can be designed to be tamper proof so that the key cannot be stolen. For example, the security module 810 can be designed to self-destroy if a tampering is detected by the security module 810. In an organization setup having a number of employees, the security module 810 can be configured to provide access to the bitcoins based on an approval by multiple employees to prevent employees from individually accessing the private key. The security module 810 can also be configured to perform a bitcoin transaction. In some embodiments, the security module 810 can be connected to a communication network 814, which can be or include the Internet and one or more wireless networks (e.g., a Wi-Fi network and or a cellular telecommunications network).”); wherein the secure execution unit is additionally adapted to check a first requirement and/or a second requirement; wherein the first requirement and the second requirement are stored in the coin managing unit as requirement data elements; and the first requirement and the second requirement pertain to the same check criterion, wherein the second requirement is an increase of the first requirement and/or the second requirement is to be checked for a different exchange direction than the first requirement (see Fig. 11, paragraph [0076]: “If a transaction request is determined in step 1102 to be above the base threshold, then in step 1108, the security database determines whether the transaction request is above or below the second, high threshold. If the request is above the second threshold, the user submits a high threshold request to the security database to enable a transaction of cryptocurrency out of the digital wallet in an amount above the high threshold. In step 1110, the security database then requests that the user satisfy a condition. In step 1112, the condition is satisfied. In step 1118, the security database provides the third key to the high threshold transaction.”; Examiner notes that even though a single requirement is sufficient to anticipate the claim, the criteria (amount thresholds) pertain to the same check criterion, wherein the second requirement is an increase of the first requirement. Examiner also notes other criteria are also envisioned, such as signature verification - see paragraphs [0074] and [0075]).
With respect to the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 28 recites “wherein the first requirement and the second requirement are stored in the coin managing unit as requirement data elements”; “the first requirement and the second requirement pertain to the same check criterion”; “wherein the second requirement is an increase of the first requirement”; “the second requirement is to be checked for a different exchange direction than the first requirement”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05.
With respect to claim 29, Melika et al. teaches all the subject matter of the unit as described above with respect to claim 28. Furthermore, Melika discloses a unit wherein the second requirement can be selected by a user as an increase of the first requirement; wherein the first requirement is defined in advance by an issuer of the coin managing unit (see paragraph [0059]: “In step 1004, either a user, an automated process, or a programmed algorithm establishes within the security database a threshold that is associated with transfer of cryptocurrency out of the digital wallet. The threshold is a predefined amount of cryptocurrency chosen by a user, an automated process, an algorithm, an amount that is a percentage of the balance of the digital wallet, or any other suitable way known in the art to select a wallet threshold. The only numerical requirement on the threshold is that the threshold be greater than zero.”). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 29 recites “the second requirement can be selected by a user as an increase of the first requirement”“ wherein the first requirement is defined in advance by an issuer of the coin managing unit”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material.
With respect to claim 30, Melika et al. teaches all the subject matter of the unit as described above with respect to claim 28. Furthermore, Melika discloses a unit wherein the first requirement is a receipt requirement and the second requirement is a transmission requirement (see paragraph [0059]. Examiner notes under BRI the claims require only a first requirement or a second requirement.). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 30 recites “wherein the first requirement is a receipt requirement and the second requirement is a transmission requirement”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material.
With respect to claim 31, Melika et al. teaches all the subject matter of the unit as described above with respect to claim 28. Furthermore, Melika discloses a unit wherein the secure execution unit checks a plurality of, first and/or second, requirements for the transaction, and/or the secure execution unit checks the first and the second requirement one after the other or only checks the second requirement, which comprises the first requirement; and/or at least one reference quadruple pertains to the check criterion, comprising a first receipt requirement and a second increased receipt requirement and a first transmission requirement and an increased second transmission requirement (see Fig. 11, paragraph [0076], base/high thresholds: “If a transaction request is determined in step 1102 to be above the base threshold, then in step 1108, the security database determines whether the transaction request is above or below the second, high threshold. If the request is above the second threshold, the user submits a high threshold request to the security database to enable a transaction of cryptocurrency out of the digital wallet in an amount above the high threshold. In step 1110, the security database then requests that the user satisfy a condition. In step 1112, the condition is satisfied. In step 1118, the security database provides the third key to the high threshold transaction.”). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 31 recites “at least one reference quadruple pertains to the check criterion, comprising a first receipt requirement and a second increased receipt requirement and a first transmission requirement and an increased second transmission requirement”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material.
With respect to claim 32, Melika et al. teaches all the subject matter of the unit as described above with respect to claim 28. Furthermore, Melika discloses a unit wherein the second increased requirement comprises: a numerical value that is increased with regard to the check compared to the first requirement, at least one additional non-permissible comparison value, or a selection or restriction of the permissible comparison values. (see Fig. 11, paragraph [0076], base/high thresholds: “If a transaction request is determined in step 1102 to be above the base threshold, then in step 1108, the security database determines whether the transaction request is above or below the second, high threshold. ....”). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 32 recites “wherein the second increased requirement comprises: a numerical value that is increased with regard to the check compared to the first requirement, at least one additional non-permissible comparison value, or a selection or restriction of the permissible comparison values”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material.
With respect to claim 33, Melika et al. teaches all the subject matter of the unit as described above with respect to claim 30. Furthermore, Melika discloses a unit wherein the transmission requirement differs from the receipt requirement; and/or the transmission requirement completely restricts or partially restricts the transmission of coin data sets to exactly one recipient, exactly one recipient group or to a plurality of recipients and/or recipient groups; and/or the receipt requirement completely restricts or partially restricts the receipt of coin data sets to exactly one sender, exactly one sender group or a plurality of senders and/or sender groups; and/or the check criterion is the transaction partner of the transaction, in its role as a sender or recipient of coin data sets. (see paragraph [0074]: “FIG. 11 is a flow chart of an alternate embodiment of the method of providing bank service security to cryptocurrency, according to various embodiments. Some embodiments include more verification signatures. For example, three verification signatures are required for all amounts of cryptocurrency transferred out of the digital wallet. The at least three verification signatures comprise the first key, the second key, and a third key. Additionally, the inclusion of the additional keys involves establishing a high threshold. The high threshold is a predefined amount of cryptocurrency above the threshold. Essentially, the inclusion of additional keys enables the ability to establish additional thresholds.”). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 33 recites “wherein the transmission requirement differs from the receipt requirement; and/or the transmission requirement completely restricts or partially restricts the transmission of coin data sets to exactly one recipient, exactly one recipient group or to a plurality of recipients and/or recipient groups; and/or the receipt requirement completely restricts or partially restricts the receipt of coin data sets to exactly one sender, exactly one sender group or a plurality of senders and/or sender groups; and/or the check criterion is the transaction partner of the transaction, in its role as a sender or recipient of coin data sets”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material.
With respect to claim 34, Melika et al. teaches all the subject matter of the unit as described above with respect to claim 28. Furthermore, Melika discloses a unit wherein the first and the second requirements are requirements for conditional transactions, wherein requirements for conditional transactions contain a type of condition and/or a type of conditional transaction which is permissible for the coin managing unit. (see paragraph [0077]: “These embodiments enable additional thresholds and more complex security measures. An illustrative example of a condition includes requiring that the high threshold transaction occur during business hours so that a human reviewer is able to review the transaction before processing said transaction. More examples include requiring a second out-of-band verification, requiring a second user or “bank employee” to verify the authenticity of the identity of the first user or owner”). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 34 recites “wherein the first and the second requirements are requirements for conditional transactions, wherein requirements for conditional transactions contain a type of condition and/or a type of conditional transaction which is permissible for the coin managing unit”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material.
With respect to claim 35, Melika et al. teaches all the subject matter of the unit as described above with respect to claim 34. Furthermore, Melika discloses a unit wherein the secure execution unit stores a conditional transaction when the requirements for conditional transactions are met; and/or the secure execution unit executes a conditional, stored, transaction only when a condition is met, an additional transaction request is received for a transaction which falls under the stored conditional transaction, and/or a conditional transaction comprises a temporal condition, an external triggering event as a condition and/or a security value as a condition. (see paragraph [0077]: “These embodiments enable additional thresholds and more complex security measures. An illustrative example of a condition includes requiring that the high threshold transaction occur during business hours so that a human reviewer is able to review the transaction before processing said transaction. More examples include requiring a second out-of-band verification, requiring a second user or “bank employee” to verify the authenticity of the identity of the first user or owner.”) Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 35 recites “wherein the secure execution unit stores a conditional transaction…”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. In addition, claim 35 recites “wherein the secure execution unit stores a conditional transaction when the requirements for conditional transactions are met”;“ the secure execution unit executes a conditional, stored, transaction only when a condition is met”, language directed to contingent limitations. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. See also MPEP 2111.04.
With respect to claim 36, Melika et al. teaches all the subject matter of the unit as described above with respect to claim 28. Furthermore, Melika discloses a unit wherein the first and the second requirements or an additional requirement is an amount requirement: a maximum value for the amount of the coin data sets to be transmitted and/or for the amount of the coin data sets to be received, or a maximum value or a minimum value for a total amount of coin data sets stored in the coin managing unit, or a maximum value for a sum of transaction amounts of transactions executed within a time period. (see paragraphs [0076] and [0077]). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 36 recites “wherein the first and the second requirements or an additional requirement is an amount requirement: a maximum value for the amount of the coin data sets to be transmitted and/or for the amount of the coin data sets to be received, or a maximum value or a minimum value for a total amount of coin data sets stored in the coin managing unit, or a maximum value for a sum of transaction amounts of transactions executed within a time period”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material.
With respect to claim 37, Melika et al. teaches all the subject matter of the unit as described above with respect to claim 28. Furthermore, Melika discloses a unit wherein, furthermore, one or more of the following data elements are stored: a unique coin managing unit identifier, and/or a public coin managing unit key of an asymmetrical key pair; optionally a secret coin managing unit key of the asymmetrical key pair; and/or a coin managing unit certificate, which comprises the coin deposit identifier and/or the public coin deposit key as certified content. (see paragraph [0080]: “When a user makes a transaction request where an out-of-band verification is required before the security database 810 releases one or more keys, the user actuates the button or switch 1204 and the transmitter 1210 delivers the device ID 1208 to the security database 810. The device ID 1208 in turn informs the security database 810 that the user owning the concealable device 1200 and associated with the digital wallet has satisfied an out-of-band verification.”). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 37 recites “wherein, furthermore, one or more of the following data elements are stored: a unique coin managing unit identifier, and/or a public coin managing unit key of an asymmetrical key pair; optionally a secret coin managing unit key of the asymmetrical key pair; and/or a coin managing unit certificate, which comprises the coin deposit identifier and/or the public coin deposit key as certified content”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material.
With respect to claim 38, Melika et al. teaches all the subject matter of the unit as described above with respect to claim 28. Furthermore, Melika discloses a unit wherein at least one requirement is stored in a partially freely readable manner, the first or second requirement; wherein a readable portion and a non-readable portion of the at least partially freely readable requirement are present; and wherein the two portions are stored in different data elements, or stored in a common data element in a non-readable manner, and additionally the readable portion is stored in a separate freely readable data element. (see paragraph [0059]: “In step 1004, either a user, an automated process, or a programmed algorithm establishes within the security database a threshold that is associated with transfer of cryptocurrency out of the digital wallet…"). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 38 recites “wherein at least one requirement is stored in a partially freely readable manner, the first or second requirement”; “wherein a readable portion and a non-readable portion of the at least partially freely readable requirement are present”; “wherein the two portions are stored in different data elements, or stored in a common data element in a non-readable manner, and additionally the readable portion is stored in a separate freely readable data element”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material.
With respect to claim 39, Melika et al. teaches all the subject matter of the unit as described above with respect to claim 28. Furthermore, Melika discloses a unit wherein the first and/or the second requirement is a counter-performance requirement, wherein the counter-performance is provided in response to at least one received coin data set as performance, in the response data to the sender of the received coin data set (see paragraph [0078]: “Additional security measures include tamper protection. For example, in some embodiments, a user attempting to retrieve the second key without also providing the first key triggers the security database to delete, destroy, hide, obscure, or encrypt the second key.”). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 39 recites “wherein the first and/or the second requirement is a counter-performance requirement, wherein the counter-performance is provided in response to at least one received coin data set as performance, in the response data to the sender of the received coin data set”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. Lastly, claim 39 recites “wherein the first and/or the second requirement is a counter-performance requirement, wherein the counter-performance is provided in response to at least one received coin data set as performance, in the response data to the sender of the received coin data set”, language directed to contingent limitations.
With respect to claim 40, Melika et al. teaches all the subject matter of the unit as described above with respect to claim 28. Furthermore, Melika discloses a unit wherein the secure execution unit for managing the coin data sets transmits transaction register data to a transaction register, wherein the transaction register data comprise a unique transaction identifier, a transaction amount, a coin managing unit identifier of the sender, a coin managing unit identifier of the recipient, and the register reference of the coin data set in the coin register, and/or transmits registration requests to the coin register, which comprises at least one register reference of a coin data set previously registered in the coin register and a register reference of a coin data set to be registered in the coin register (see paragraph [0072]: “In step 1020, after the security database has verified the presence of the first key and received the out-of-band verification, then the security database provides the second key, thus submitting the proposed transaction to a cryptocurrency exchange to cause a transfer out of the digital wallet. In step 1022, the transaction is processed and the transaction appears on a public ledger.”; see also Fig. 3, paragraph [0031]: “FIG. 3 is a flow diagram of a process for sending bitcoin over communication networks, such as social network. The social network can include Twitter, Facebook, email, Reddit, WhatsApp., etc. Other communication networks can include email, telephone (e.g., via short message service (SMS) or app installed on a smartphone), etc. A user can register with a bitcoin service provider, such as the bitcoin DNS service, and use the service provider to send and/or receive bitcoins using bitcoin hostnames of the users. Further, the users may link their bitcoin hostnames or address with their user accounts of social networks, such as Twitter, to send and/or receive bitcoins using their user identifications (IDs) of their social network user accounts. For example, a user “A” may send bitcoins to user “B” in Twitter by tweeting bitcoins to the Twitter user ID of user B. The bitcoin service provider would the resolve the mapping of the bitcoin hostnames/Twitter IDs to the bitcoin address of the sender and the recipient and facilitate the exchange of bitcoins accordingly..." ). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 40 recites “wherein the transaction register data comprise a unique transaction identifier, a transaction amount, a coin managing unit identifier of the sender, a coin managing unit identifier of the recipient, and the register reference of the coin data set in the coin register”; “which comprises at least one register reference of a coin data set previously registered in the coin register and a register reference of a coin data set to be registered in the coin register”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material
With respect to claim 41, Melika et al. teaches all the subject matter of the unit as described above with respect to claim 28. Furthermore, Melika discloses a unit wherein the coin managing unit is a local coin managing unit, or is a server-based coin managing unit, which either comprises its own secure execution unit for the user of the coin managing unit, or comprises a common secure execution unit for a plurality of users, in a coin deposit managing unit with coin deposits of the users. (see paragraph [0048]: “The computer system 900 can send messages and receive data, including program code, through the network(s), the network link 919, and the communication interface 917. In the Internet example, a server (not shown) might transmit requested code belonging to an application program for implementing an embodiment through the network 925, the local network 921 and the communication interface 917. The processor 903 may execute the transmitted code while being received and/or store the code in the storage device 909, or other non-volatile storage for later execution. In this manner, the computer system 900 may obtain application code in the form of a carrier wave.”). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 41 recites “wherein the coin managing unit is a local coin managing unit, or is a server-based coin managing unit”; “which either comprises its own secure execution unit for the user of the coin managing unit, or comprises a common secure execution unit for a plurality of users, in a coin deposit managing unit with coin deposits of the users”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material.
With respect to claim 42, Melika et al. teaches all the subject matter of the unit as described above with respect to claim 28. Furthermore, Melika discloses a unit wherein the secure execution unit, to manage the coin data sets in a transaction with an additional coin managing unit, evaluates a received data element of the additional coin managing unit, wherein the additional data elements completely or partially comprise a requirement of the additional coin managing unit, and the secure execution unit checks the requirement of the additional coin managing unit for the transaction. (see paragraph [0086]: “FIG. 13 is a flow chart of an alternate embodiment of a method to provide security to cryptocurrency, according to various embodiments. An alternate embodiment of the invention discloses a modified distribution of keys. Many of the steps are the same as displayed in FIG. 10. In step 1306, instead of providing a key each to a user and the security database, the keys are provided to a first user and a second user. In some cases, the digital wallet is programmed such that the threshold is built into the digital wallet. In other cases, the keys belonging to the first and second users are both arbitrary keys and the security database holds the real public-private key pair. The first and second users act as checks upon one another such that each is able to spend up to the threshold by themselves, but spending over the threshold requires both of the users.”; paragraph [0088]: “In step 1318, when the requested transaction is above the threshold, the security database requires both users' keys to process the transaction. In step 1320, if one or both of the keys are not present, the transaction is prevented. Various embodiments and means for preventing a transaction are disclosed above in other examples. In step 1322, when both user keys are available, the security database provides the necessary public-private keys (in the case where the users have arbitrary keys). In the case where the users each have a public-private key pair, the security database provides the exchange application. In step 1324, the transaction is enabled to process”. Examiner notes the additional coin managing unit is the digital wallet of the second user).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Filter et al. (US 2022/0351163 A1) disclose assignable token backed real-time digital asset exchange, including conditional access rights in accordance with a set of conditions. The set of conditions include one or more release conditions and one or more consume conditions.
Lee et al. (US 2019/0354967 A1) disclose method and apparatus for managing subject data based on block chain, including ownership transfer.
Zamani et al. (US 2023/0344649 A1) disclose offline interaction system and method, including a trusted execution environment for verification.
Shamai et al. (WO 2022034592 A1) disclose transferring cryptocurrency from a remote limited access wallet, including restricting and/or limiting overall value of cryptocurrency funds transferred, limiting the risk for losing cryptocurrency funds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO D CASTILHO whose telephone number is (571)270-1592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/and/or
2 Examiner notes that claim 35 recites “wherein the secure execution unit stores a conditional transaction when the requirements for conditional transactions are met”“ the secure execution unit executes a conditional, stored, transaction only when a condition is met” , language directed to contingent limitations. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. See also MPEP 2111.04.
3 Examiner notes that claim 39 recites “wherein the first and/or the second requirement is a counter-performance requirement, wherein the counter-performance is provided in response to at least one received coin data set as performance, in the response data to the sender of the received coin data set”, language directed to contingent limitations. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. See also MPEP 2111.04.
Prosecution Insights