Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 13-24 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “Granting cryptocurrency based on predetermined user actions”.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: the various units that perform the respective claimed limitations of claim 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof – i.e. the various claimed units of claim 24 represent generic computing elements.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 13 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 13 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include:
issuing, to a first user, invitation information for inviting a second user / obtaining the invitation information from the second user / generating information on debt indicating that currency is to be granted to the first user or the second user / granting the currency according to the debt in a case where a history indicative of the second user taking a predetermined action is obtained. Claim 13 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: issuing, to a first user, invitation information for inviting a second user / obtaining the invitation information from the second user. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements- see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 13 includes the additional element of granting cryptocurrency, which does no more than apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment/field of use. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the additional element of granting cryptocurrency does no more than apply or link the use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment/ field of use. The additional element does not improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor does it apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 13 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 23 and 24 are directed to a CRM and apparatus, respectively, for performing the method of claim 13. Claims 23, 24 perform the method of claim 13 using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 23, 24 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 13.
Remaining dependent claims 14-22 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of independent claim 13. The claims further recite the additional elements of playing a cryptocurrency game, which does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element does not , alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21, 22 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.
Claims 21 , 22 recite the limitations “the grant quantity”, “the holding quantity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 13, 18, 23, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ocko (WO 2011041608 A1) in further view of Caldwell (20190220836 ).
As per Claims 13, 23, 24, Ocko teaches a method , CRM and apparatus comprising:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium; An issuance unit that issues; an obtainment unit that obtains ; a generation unit that generates ; a grant unit that grants; (the units represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: fig 2 – processing servers, including computing processors, that implement the claimed limitations.)
issuing, to a first user, invitation information for inviting a second user; obtaining the invitation information from the second user; generating information on debt indicating that cryptocurrency is to be granted to the first user or the second user; (at least: para 38-40)
Caldwell further teaches:
granting the cryptocurrency according to the debt in a case where a history indicative of the second user taking a predetermined action is obtained. (at least: para 284)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Ocko’s existing features, with Caldwell’s feature of granting the cryptocurrency according to the debt in a case where a history indicative of the second user taking a predetermined action is obtained, in order to reward platform users based on user actions, some of which can have tangible benefits for the platform – Caldwell, abstract and para 284-285. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 18, Ocko in view of Caldwell teach:
the cryptocurrency is granted to the first user and the second user. (Ocko teaches providing a cryptocurrency award to the first user , as noted above. It also teaches that the second user is invited by the first user; once the second user joins the platform/game, the second user is eligible to receive rewards and can be granted a cryptocurrency reward – at least para 284. Ocko thus teaches providing cryptocurrency rewards to multiple users, including the first and second user.)
Claims 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ocko (WO 2011041608 A1) in further view of Caldwell (20190220836 ) in even further view of Xing (20170221087 ).
As per Claim 14, Ocko in view of Caldwell teach the predetermined action including the second user making a purchase – Caldwell, at least: para 284, and Xing further teaches:
the predetermined action includes the second user making a purchase for a predetermined amount or higher at a predetermined real shop or EC site. (at least: para 47)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Ocko’s existing features, combined with Caldwell’s existing features, with Xing’s feature of the predetermined action includes the second user making a purchase for a predetermined amount or higher at a predetermined real shop or EC site, to reward users for buying certain products – Xing, para 45, 47. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 15, Ocko in view of Caldwell in further view of Xing further teach:
in a case where an amount of purchase made by the second user reaches the predetermined amount, quantity of the cryptocurrency corresponding to an amount that exceeds the predetermined amount is granted to the first user. (Ocko in view of Caldwell teach the predetermined action including the second user making a purchase – Caldwell, at least: para 284 , 288, as well as granting the cryptocurrency according to the debt in a case where a history indicative of the second user taking a predetermined action is obtained, as noted above. Xing teaches rewarding the first user in a case where an amount of purchase made by the second user reaches the predetermined amount, as noted above. Caldwell further teaches “While particular embodiments of the invention have been described, it is not intended that the invention be limited thereto, as it is intended that the invention be as broad in scope as the art will allow and that the specification be read likewise. Thus, while particular message and transaction constructs have been disclosed, it will be appreciated that other message and transaction constructs can be used as well. “ – at least para 312, thus teaching that the cryptocurrency amount that is granted to the first user corresponds to an amount that exceeds the predetermined amount.)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ocko (WO 2011041608 A1) in further view of Caldwell (20190220836 ) in further view of Xing (20170221087 ) in even further view of Official Notice.
As per Claim 16, Ocko in view of Caldwell in further view of Xing teach rewarding a first user with cryptocurrency based on the second user’s purchase data, as noted above. They explicitly fail to teach that the reward is granted based on the second user’s purchase data within a predetermined period.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to provide user rewards based on purchase/transaction data of that same user (or referred users) that occurred within predetermined periods – see, for example , user vouchers and referral vouchers that have purchase expirations rules and regulations.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ocko in view of Caldwell in further view of Xing to include the feature of providing rewards to a first user based on a second user’s purchase data within a predetermined period returned of Examiner’s Official Notice because all the claimed elements/steps were known in the prior art
and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements/steps as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ocko (WO 2011041608 A1) in further view of Caldwell (20190220836 ) in further view of Hingorani (WO 2017019530 A1).
As per Claim 17, Ocko in view of Caldwell teach rewarding a first user with cryptocurrency based on the second user’s predetermined action including a purchase data, as noted above. Hingorani further teaches a reward being based on a user’s predetermined action including the user purchasing a ticket for playing a game with the cryptocurrency. (at least: para 7, 102; also teaches the concept of a ticket associated with the game - at least para 7, and “In the following description of the various embodiments, reference is made to the accompanying drawings, which form a part hereof, and in which is shown by way of illustration various embodiments in which aspects described herein may be practiced. It is to be understood that other embodiments may be utilized and structural and functional modifications may be made without departing from the scope of the described aspects and embodiments. Aspects described herein are capable of other embodiments and of being practiced or being carried out in various ways. Also, it is to be understood that the phraseology and terminology used herein are for the purpose of description and should not be regarded as limiting. Rather, the phrases and terms used herein are to be given their broadest interpretation and meaning. “ – para 21, thus teaching the predetermined action including the user purchasing a ticket for playing the game with cryptocurrency.)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Ocko’s existing features, combined with Caldwell’s existing features, with Hingorani’s feature of the reward being based on a user’s predetermined action including the user purchasing a ticket for playing a game with the cryptocurrency, to reward players with game credits and/or currency used to unlock new features in the game – Hingorani, para 7. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ocko (WO 2011041608 A1) in further view of Caldwell (20190220836 ) in further view of Tong (20120036003 ).
As per Claim 19, Tong teaches:
the information on the debt is deleted in a case where the history is not obtained after a lapse of a predetermined period from occurrence of the debt. (at least: para 74-75)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Ocko’s existing features, combined with Caldwell’s existing features, with Tong’s feature of the information on the debt is deleted in a case where the history is not obtained after a lapse of a predetermined period from occurrence of the debt, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ocko (WO 2011041608 A1) in further view of Caldwell (20190220836 ) in further view of Youngblood (20200334674 ).
As per Claim 20, Youngblood teaches:
grant quantity according to the debt of the cryptocurrency is varied depending on holding quantity of the cryptocurrency held by the first user or the second user. (at least: para 127)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Ocko’s existing features, combined with Caldwell’s existing features, with Youngblood’s feature of grant quantity according to the debt of the cryptocurrency is varied depending on holding quantity of the cryptocurrency held by the first user or the second user, to facilitate reward transfer to users – Youngblood, para 127. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 21, 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ocko (WO 2011041608 A1) in further view of Caldwell (20190220836 ) in further view of Harrison (20200034869).
As per Claim 21, Harrison teaches:
a value obtained by adding the grant quantity according to the debt to the holding quantity is output so as to be displayed in a case where a request to display holding quantity of the cryptocurrency is obtained from the first user or the second user. (at least: para 46, 129 – viewing the interface [user request to display cryptocurrency holding quantity], as well as “The foregoing description of various embodiments of the claimed subject matter has been provided for the purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the claimed subject matter to the precise forms disclosed. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to one skilled in the art. Embodiments were chosen and described in order to best describe the principles of the invention and its practical applications, thereby enabling those skilled in the relevant art to understand the claimed subject matter, the various embodiments, and the various modifications that are suited to the particular uses contemplated.” – para 152)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Ocko’s existing features, combined with Caldwell’s existing features, with Harrison’s feature of a value obtained by adding the grant quantity according to the debt to the holding quantity is output so as to be displayed in a case where a request to display holding quantity of the cryptocurrency is obtained from the first user or the second user, to allow for the purchasing, selling, and/or transferring cryptocurrency to be disbursed as a reward for using a specialized payment card- Harrison, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 22, Harrison teaches:
the holding quantity and the grant quantity according to the debt are output so as to be discernibly displayed in a case where a request to display holding quantity of the cryptocurrency is obtained from the first user or the second user. (at least: para 46, 129 – viewing the interface [user request to display cryptocurrency holding quantity])
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Ocko’s existing features, combined with Caldwell’s existing features, with Harrison’s feature of the holding quantity and the grant quantity according to the debt are output so as to be discernibly displayed in a case where a request to display holding quantity of the cryptocurrency is obtained from the first user or the second user, to allow for the purchasing, selling, and/or transferring cryptocurrency to be disbursed as a reward for using a specialized payment card- Harrison, abstract.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rubin (20180315072) teaches a method of facilitating issuance and management of cryptocurrency-based loyalty points associated with at least one of a product and a service, the method comprising: receiving, using a communication device, a purchase request for obtaining at least one cryptocurrency-based loyalty token to be associated with a user account; transferring, using a processing device, the at least one cryptocurrency-based loyalty token to a loyalty user wallet associated with the user account based on the purchase request; and storing, using a storage device, token allocation data on a blockchain, wherein the token allocation data comprises at least one characteristic associated with each of the user account, the purchase request, transferring of the at least one cryptocurrency-based loyalty token and the loyalty user wallet. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
2/13/2026