DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt of Applicant’s amendments filed on December 18, 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, 15, 17, and 18.
Claims 8-14 were previously canceled.
Claims 1-7 and 15-22 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim Objections
Examiner initially objected to claim 15 for a probable copy and pasting error. Applicant deleted the repeated limitation. In view of the amendment, Examiner withdraws this objection.
Regarding 112 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 15, 16, and 20-22 under 35 USC 112(b) / 2nd paragraph as being indefinite for an antecedent basis issue. Applicant did not address this issue with their amendments. The initial appearance of the term “the digital currency transaction” (15th line of the claim) was not amended, nor was an antecedent basis added before this. In view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments, Examiner maintains this rejection.
Regarding 101 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 1-7 and 15-22 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 18, this claim was rejected for being a signal claim. Applicant amended the claims to recite a non-transitory computer readable medium. In view of Applicant’s amendment, Examiner withdraws this particular rejection.
Regarding claims 1-7 and 15-22, these claims were rejected for being abstract. Applicant argued that the claims a recite a practical application of the judicial exception. Applicant argued the claims present a technical improvement. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims do not improve technology; the underlying technology remains unaffected by the claims. Applicant is addressing a business problem (verifying a transaction) with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology. It is not a technical solution to check for consistency in a transaction. The identified limitations do no amount to a practical application because they are a part of the abstract idea. Outside of the abstract idea there remains only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Neither of these are indicative of a practical application. Applicant’s claims do not address a technical limitation/deficiency in the art and thus does not amount to a practical application.
Examiner maintains this rejection.
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 15, 16, and 20-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15; this claim recites the limitation "the digital currency transaction" in the 15th line of the claim (3rd line of the limitation beginning with “the second operating institution…”). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should be noted that the claim recites “a digital currency transaction” subsequently in the claim (in the 11th to last line/4th line of the uploading step).
Claims 16 and 20-22 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as executing payment processing.
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 1-7, 19), machine (claims 15-17 and 20-22), and manufacture/product (claims 18). For the sake of compact prosecution, while claims 18 is directed towards a signal/software per se; they will be interpreted as a product for further subject matter eligibility analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 1, 15, 17, and 18 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
use the user certificate of the first [entity] to verify the user identity of the first [entity], and to upload second… currency transaction information comprising the transaction factor;
upload the first… currency transaction information; and
verify the first… currency transaction information based on the second… currency transaction information, and to perform the… currency transaction in a case that verification of the first… currency transaction information succeeds;
exchanging user certificates,
the exchanged user certificates being used for mutual verification of user identities;
and uploading first… currency transaction information comprising the transaction factor,
and sending the first… currency transaction information to complete a…. currency transaction,
wherein the transaction factor is configured to verify the first… currency transaction information
upload… currency transaction information,
wherein the… currency transaction information comprises the transaction factor,
check the consistency.
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice and commercial/legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. By reciting/claiming a certain method of organizing human activity, Applicant’s claims are directed to an abstract idea. The recited system components are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recites system components for implementing the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of a first transaction terminal, a second transaction terminal, a communication connection, a first operating institution back-end system, a second operating institution back-end system, a digital currency transaction system, a processor, a memory, a program, an electronic device, a computer-readable medium, a computer program; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The limitations of:
sending the first… currency transaction information to complete a…. currency transaction
as drafted are insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere data gathering and storing of information and do not qualify as a practical application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a first transaction terminal, a second transaction terminal, a communication connection, a first operating institution back-end system, a second operating institution back-end system, a digital currency transaction system, a processor, a memory, a program, an electronic device, a computer-readable medium, a computer program; amount to no more than mere components to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitations of:
sending the first… currency transaction information to complete a…. currency transaction
as drafted are insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere data gathering and storing and do not qualify as significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when clamed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). See MPEP 2106.05(g). See Applicant’s specification pages 13-15, about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 2, 16, and 20 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 15 Therefore, claims 2, 16, and 20 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 3-7, 19, 21, and 22 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 15. In addition, the recite the additional elements of a local security chip, a digital currency, a private key signature, a preset key algorithm. The components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 3-7, 19, 21, and 22 are considered ineligible subject matter.
Thus, the dependent claims 2-7, 16, and 19-22 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
There was no prior art rejection on file. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights