DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 06/26/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined hereon.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 13 are objected to because the claims recites “special offers for selected things of value; sand” However, the claim language contain misspelling. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a “Method” (Process). Claims 11-20 are directed to “A digital memory device” (Article of Manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite an abstract idea of processing payment transaction between entities, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test since the steps include commercial interactions, and managing relationships (See MPEP 2106.04 & 2106.04(a)). The use of a physical aid to help perform Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concept steps does not negate the Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concept nature of the limitations, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further, claims can recite a Methods of Organized Human Activity even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to processing payment exchange interaction between a source, destination and an interaction entity which is a commercial interactions between customers and payment service providers based on managed relationships of customers, merchants and payment service providers preferred type of payments. More specifically, the following non-underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the underlined, bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claims 1, as similarly as 11,
initiating, by a source computing entity or by a destination computing entity, a secure interaction with the other of the source computing entity or the destination computing entity, wherein:
the initiating the secure interaction includes informing, by the source computing entity or by the destination computing entity, an interaction computing entity of the initiated secure transaction; and
the secure interaction is regarding something of value;
determining, by the interaction computing entity, user preferences associated with the source computing entity based on a set of source inputs associated with the source computing entity, wherein:
the set of source inputs is digital information regarding the source computing entity and/or the secure interaction, and
the user preferences include identify of a cryptocurrency digital asset for which the source computing entity is offering to pay for the something of value;
determining, by the interaction computing entity, merchant preferences associated with the destination computing entity, wherein the merchant preferences include a preferred digital asset payment type;
establishing, by the interaction computing entity, digital asset exchange parameters for the secure interaction based on the user preferences and on the merchant preferences; and
facilitating, by the interaction computing entity, the secure interaction between the source computing entity and the destination computing entity based on the digital asset exchange parameters when the digital asset exchange parameters were confirmed by the source computing entity and/or the destination computing entity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the use of the additional elements as a tools to implement the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment 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 elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), using the additional elements to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. These functions 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 processing payment transaction between entities. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further describe the abstract idea of processing payment transaction between entities. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 1-2, 4, 7-12, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding et al. (US 2021/0350373 A1) in view of Rosas Bustos et al. (US 20220377071 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Spalding discloses: a method and A digital memory device comprises: a first digital data storage section that stores operational instructions that, when executed by a source computing entity or by a destination computing entity, causes the source computing entity or the destination computing entity to: (Fig. 1; Par. [0195])
initiate a secure interaction with the other of the source computing entity or the destination computing entity, wherein: the initiating the secure interaction includes informing, by the source computing entity or by the destination computing entity, an interaction computing entity (“a network computing device”) of the initiated secure transaction; and the secure interaction is regarding something of value (“payment”); and (Figs. 1-2; Pars. [0032] “FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram of an embodiment of a cryptocurrency payment system 10 that includes a source computing device 12, a destination computing device 14, a network computing device 16, an interface means 18, and a cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device 20. The cryptocurrency payment system 10 facilitates a payment from the source computing device 12 paying with a cryptocurrency to a destination computing device 14 accepting a desired currency (e.g., fiat currency, a different cryptocurrency) and overcomes the following issues.” [0050]-[0051], [0062])
a second digital data storage section that stores operational instructions that, when executed by the interaction computing entity, causes the interaction computing entity to:
(Fig. 10; Pars. [0075] “The network computing device 16 sends the amount of the desired currency 52 to the source computing device 12.” [0105])
based on a set of source inputs associated with the source computing entity, wherein: the set of source inputs is digital information regarding the source computing entity and/or the secure interaction, and the user preferences include identify of a cryptocurrency digital asset for which the source computing entity is offering to pay (“a type of cryptocurrency it wishes to use”) for the something of value; (Par. [0050] “The source computing device 12 sends source real-time payment information 24 to the network computing device 16 via its network application 22… The source real-time payment information 24 includes a source identifier (ID) and a type of cryptocurrency it wishes to use in a real-time payment to the destination computing device 14.”)
(Pars. [0055], [0067] “the network computing device 16 sends the payment in the amount of the desired currency 48 to the destination computing device 14 to complete the real-time cryptocurrency-based payment.”)
wherein the merchant preferences include a preferred digital asset payment type; (Par. [0050] “The destination real-time payment information 26 includes a destination identifier (ID) and a type of desired currency (e.g., a fiat currency, a different cryptocurrency, etc.) it wishes to receive in the real-time payment from the source computing device 12. One or more of the source real-time payment information 24 and the destination real-time payment information 26 includes the amount of the real-time payment.”)
(Pars. [0067], [0185] “The real-time cryptocurrency-based payment process continues with step 142 where the network computing device exchanges the cryptocurrency payment received from the consumer computing device to a payment in the selected currency desired by the merchant computing device.”) and
facilitate the secure interaction between the source computing entity and the destination computing entity based on the digital asset exchange (Figs. 2, 20; Pars. [0156] “When the network computing device 16 receives an amount of cryptocurrency from the consumer computing device 112 to use in the real-time cryptocurrency-based payment, a network acknowledgment (ACK) of the receipt of the amount of the cryptocurrency is generated, the cryptocurrency is exchanged for the merchant's desired currency, and the merchant is paid.” [0185]”)
.
Spalding does not explicitly disclose:
determine preferences;
establish digital asset exchange parameters for the secure interaction based on the user preferences;
exchange parameters; and
when the digital asset exchange parameters were confirmed by the source computing entity and/or the destination computing entity.
Rosas disclose:
determine preferences, (Figs. 8-9; Pars. [0099] “In operation 810, the transaction management service may determine if the exchanged asset (the asset or assets to which the selected or initial asset has been exchanged or converted) is accepted by the receiving party or entity identified in the transaction request.”)
establish digital asset exchange parameters for the secure interaction, exchange parameters; (Fig. 9; Pars. [0098] “In operation 808, the transaction management service may determine an optimized transfer of the available asset to an exchanged asset. In one particular instance, the transaction management service may determine or calculate a “cost” for exchanging the selected asset with one or more other assets or converting the selected asset to some amount of one or more other assets.” [0100])
based on the user preferences; (Pars. [0096] “In some implementations, the request for the transfer may include an indication of a preferred available asset to exchange. For example, the request may include an identifier of a particular asset that is to be selected as the initial asset for conversion.” [0099], [0103])
the digital asset exchange parameters were confirmed by the source computing entity and/or the destination computing entity. (Fig. 8; Pars. [0094], [0101] “If an exchanged asset obtained through the recursion technique is identified as acceptable by the receiving party, the transaction management service may, in operation 814, transfer the exchanged asset to the receiving device or entity associated with the transaction… Thus, through the recursive method 800 of FIG. 8, the transaction management service may facilitate the transaction of an asset to a receiving entity, including converting an initial selected asset into an asset acceptable by the receiving entity..” )
Therefore, 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 to simply substitute converting of specifically desired currencies by parties of transaction between consumers and merchants (Figs. 10, 16; Par. [0088] “the real-time cryptocurrency-based payment loop 28, when the ACK is generated, the network computing device 16 exchanges the amount of the cryptocurrency received from the source computing device 12 to an amount of the desired currency 52. Cryptocurrency exchange is done quickly (e.g., 30 seconds to a few minutes) to account for exchange rate volatility.”) of Spalding in view of Rosas in order perform currency exchange in real-time to eliminate any pricing volatility (Spalding, Par. [0088]) and to specifically identify assets to be exchanged to specific other assets during payment transaction (Rosas, Par. [0096]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Spalding in view of Rosas discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Spalding discloses wherein the initiating the securing interaction further comprises:
accessing, by the source computing entity, a digital asset-based interaction page associated with the destination computing device, wherein the digital asset-based interaction page provides information regarding potential interactions supported by the destination computing entity (“code (e.g., a barcode, a two-part barcode, etc.) pertaining to cryptocurrency payment system payments.”). (Figs. 16, 20; Par. [0046] “As yet another example, a combination of interface means 18 is possible. For example, a source computing device 12 is a smart phone and the destination computing device 14 is an online POS connection device (e.g., an e-commerce website). A user of the source computing device 12 accesses the e-commerce platform via a network connection interface means 18 on another computing device associated with the user of the source computing device 12 (e.g., a laptop or desktop computer). The laptop or desktop computer displays information for use in a direct link with the smart phone. For example, a code is generated by the e-commerce platform and displayed on the laptop's display. The smart phone's camera scans the code to further interact with e-commerce platform (e.g., complete a payment).” [0138], [0149], [0177])
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Spalding in view of Rosas discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Spalding discloses:
sending, by the destination computing entity, a set of digital asset-based interaction inputs to the interaction computing entity, wherein the set of digital asset-based interaction inputs include digital information regarding the merchant preferences, (“type of desired currency”) which further include: preferred types of interactions (“it wishes to receive”); preferred digital asset payment types for different types of interactions; (Figs. 10, 16; Par. [0050] “The destination real-time payment information 26 includes a destination identifier (ID) and a type of desired currency (e.g., a fiat currency, a different cryptocurrency, etc.) it wishes to receive in the real-time payment from the source computing device 12. One or more of the source real-time payment information 24 and the destination real-time payment information 26 includes the amount of the real-time payment.”)
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Spalding in view of Rosas discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Spalding discloses: wherein the informing the interaction computing entity further comprises: sending, by the source computing entity, the set of source inputs to the interaction computing entity, wherein: the digital information regarding the source computing entity includes one or more of: (Figs. 10, 16; Pars. [0050] “The source computing device 12 sends source real-time payment information 24 to the network computing device 16 via its network application 22… The source real-time payment information 24 includes a source identifier (ID) and a type of cryptocurrency it wishes to use in a real-time payment to the destination computing device 14.”)
a user identifier associated with the source computing entity (“source identifier (ID)”);
a source computing entity identifier;
a user email address associated with the source computing entity;
a user physical address associated with the source computing entity;
a list of digital assets associated with a user via the source computing entity;
a source computing entity IP address;
access token information;
a user telephone number associated with the source computing entity; and
a customer loyalty number associated with the source computing entity or with the user identifier; and
the digital information regarding the secure interaction includes one or more of:
intent to initiate the secure interaction via:
sending a digital communication regarding initiating the secure interaction, or
scanning a code regarding the secure interaction; (Par. [0149] “The consumer computing device 112 scans the code as the payment initiation.” [0150])
identity of a digital asset source;
an offer for sale amount regarding the something of value; and
identity of the something of value.
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Spalding in view of Rosas discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Spalding discloses wherein the
establishing, as a first digital asset exchange parameter of the digital asset exchange parameters, proxy information regarding the user preferences of a user associated with the source computing entity;
(“lock an amount of system cryptocurrency”) for purchasing of the something of value; (Fig. 10; Pars. [0052], [0065] “The method continues with step 34 where, within the nonreal-time reconciliation of the cryptocurrency-based payment loop 30, the network computing device 16 instructs the cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device 20 to lock an amount of system cryptocurrency associated with the real-time cryptocurrency-based payment.”)
establishing, as a third digital asset exchange parameter of the digital asset exchange parameters, a sales price for purchase of the something of value via the source computing entity by the associated user;
establishing, as a fourth digital asset exchange parameter of the digital asset exchange parameters, applicable customer loyalty benefits of the associated user regarding the purchasing of the something of value and/or purchasing via the destination computing entity associated with a merchant; and
establishing, as a fifth digital asset exchange parameter of the digital asset exchange parameters, an access token to ensure integrity of the secure interaction. (Figs.; Pars. )
Spalding does not explicitly disclose establish digital asset exchange parameters.
Rosas disclose establish digital asset exchange parameters; (Fig. 9; Pars. [0098] “In operation 808, the transaction management service may determine an optimized transfer of the available asset to an exchanged asset. In one particular instance, the transaction management service may determine or calculate a “cost” for exchanging the selected asset with one or more other assets or converting the selected asset to some amount of one or more other assets.” [0100])
Therefore, 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 to simply substitute converting of specifically desired currencies by parties of transaction between consumers and merchants (Figs. 10, 16; Par. [0088]) of Spalding in view of Rosas in order perform currency exchange in real-time to eliminate any pricing volatility (Spalding, Par. [0088]) and to specifically identify assets to be exchanged to specific other assets during payment transaction (Rosas, Par. [0096]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Spalding in view of Rosas discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Spalding discloses wherein the facilitating the secure interaction further comprises one or more of: when sufficient staking (“lock an amount of system cryptocurrency”) of the cryptocurrency digital asset for the sales price for purchase of the something of value has been verified; (Figs. 10, 16; Pars. [0052], [0065] “The method continues with step 34 where, within the nonreal-time reconciliation of the cryptocurrency-based payment loop 30, the network computing device 16 instructs the cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device 20 to lock an amount of system cryptocurrency associated with the real-time cryptocurrency-based payment.” [0069] “When the network computing device 16 verifies the amount of the cryptocurrency received by the source computing device 12 at step 40, the method continues to step 44 where the network computing device 16 instructs the cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device 20 to release the amount of system cryptocurrency associated with the real-time cryptocurrency-based payment.”)
determining applicable customer loyalty benefits;
applying the applicable customer loyalty benefits to purchase of the something of value; and
executing the secure interaction using the proxy information (“The source real-time payment information”) regarding the associated user and/or of the source computing entity. (Figs. 2, 20; Pars. [0050] “The source computing device 12 sends source real-time payment information 24 to the network computing device 16 via its network application 22… The source real-time payment information 24 includes a source identifier (ID) and a type of cryptocurrency it wishes to use in a real-time payment to the destination computing device 14.” [0156] “When the network computing device 16 receives an amount of cryptocurrency from the consumer computing device 112 to use in the real-time cryptocurrency-based payment, a network acknowledgment (ACK) of the receipt of the amount of the cryptocurrency is generated, the cryptocurrency is exchanged for the merchant's desired currency, and the merchant is paid.” [0185]”)
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Spalding in view of Rosas discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Spalding discloses wherein the second digital data storage section further stores operational instructions that, when executed by the interaction computing entity, causes the interaction computing entity to: sufficient staking (“lock an amount of system cryptocurrency”) (Figs. 10, 16; Pars. [0052], [0065], [0069])
Spalding does not explicitly disclose:
verifying the access token prior to verifying the sufficient;
when the access token is not verified, denying the secure interaction.
Rosas disclose:
verifying the access token (“secure identifiers of the device and/or a user of the device”) prior to verifying the sufficient; (Figs. 4, 7; Pars. [0087] “the transaction management service may utilize security service 422 of FIG. 4 to verify or authenticate an identifier of a computing device 106 or user provided to the transaction management service as part of an asset exchange. Similarly, the transaction management service may communicate with security application 406 executed on a computing device 106 to receive one or more secure identifiers of the device and/or a user of the device. For example, the security application 406 executed on the computing device 106 may provide a unique device identifier to the transaction management service to identify the device or a user associated with the device. The transaction management service may utilize the device identifier to access an asset management service to determine one or more assets associated with the identifier.” [0091])
when the access token is not verified, denying the secure interaction. (Figs. 4, 7; Par. [0091] “If the transaction management service determines, in operation 710, that the secure identifier is not authenticated, the transaction may be canceled in operation 712.”)
Therefore, 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 to simply substitute users accessing shopping sites to perform asset transaction or receiving of unique access code by the users via users devices (Figs. 10, 16; Par. [0046] “A user of the source computing device 12 accesses the e-commerce platform via a network connection interface means 18 on another computing device associated with the user of the source computing device 12 (e.g., a laptop or desktop computer).”) of Spalding in view of Rosas to directly access e-commerce platforms via network connections and complete transaction (Spalding, Par. [0046]) and to allow access to users secure data only when users are authenticated using unique access data specific to the users and/or their devices (Rosas, Par. [0091]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
With respect to claims 10 and 20, Spalding in view of Rosas discloses all the limitations as described above.
Spalding does not explicitly disclose: wherein the second digital data storage section further stores operational instructions that, when executed by the interaction computing entity, causes the interaction computing entity to at least one of:
receiving, from the source computing entity, a confirmation to execute the secure interaction in response to a source confirmation query; and
receiving, from the destination computing entity, a confirmation to execute the secure interaction in response to a destination confirmation query.
Rosas disclose: wherein the second digital data storage section further stores operational instructions that, when executed by the interaction computing entity, causes the interaction computing entity to at least one of:
receiving, from the source computing entity, a confirmation to execute the secure interaction in response to a source confirmation query; (Fig. 7; Par. [0090] “In operation 704, the transaction management service may request and receive, from the requesting device, an approval for the transaction. In particular, the transaction management service may provide a summary of the requested transaction to the requesting device that instructs an application executed by the requesting device to prompt a user or other controlling entity for a verification of the transaction. The response to the prompt may be transmitted to the transaction management service and may include, in some instances, a request for an input, such as a unique identifier or code of the entity associated with the requesting device. In operation 706 and upon receiving the transaction verification…”) and
receiving, from the destination computing entity, a confirmation to execute the secure interaction in response to a destination confirmation query. (Figs. 7-8; Pars. [0092] “The transaction management service may negotiate with the asset service of the receiving device to initiate the transfer of the asset to the receiving device or asset service. This transfer may include one or more communications with the receiving device to facilitate the transfer of the identified assets. For example, the receiving device may be an asset management server of a grocery store and, upon receiving and verification of the assets from the wallet of the computing device as a user is attempting to buy groceries from the grocery store, may approve the user's purchase with the transferred asset.” [0101] “A verification of the received asset may then be received in operation 816 from the receiving device or entity and a notice of completion of the requested transaction may be transmitted to the requesting device in operation 818 from the transaction management service.”)
Therefore, 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 to simply substitute presenting of transactions that include network acknowledgment (ACK) generated by a network computing devices based on receipt of assets for exchange to approve via users and merchants interface (Figs. 10, 16; Pars. [0142] “the existing merchant payment gateway 104 pushes the acknowledgement of the approval/decline (ACK) to the existing merchant-consumer interface computing device 100 at step 7 where the consumer is notified whether the payment is approved or declined.” [0156]) of Spalding in view of Rosas in order perform currency exchange in real-time to eliminate any pricing volatility (Spalding, Par. [0088]) and to specifically identify assets to be exchanged to specific other assets during payment transactions and receive confirmations for exchanges (Rosas, Par. [0096]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding et al. (US 2021/0350373 A1) in view of Rosas Bustos et al. (US 20220377071 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2023/0124459 A1).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Spalding in view of Rosas discloses all the limitations as described above.
Neither Spalding nor does Rosas explicitly disclose wherein the determining the user preferences further comprises: interpreting a smart contract associated with the source computing entity, wherein the smart contract includes a plurality of purchasing preferences of a user associated with the source computing device.
Choi disclose wherein the determining the user preferences further comprises: interpreting (“execute”) a smart contract associated with the source computing entity, wherein the smart contract includes a plurality of purchasing preferences of a user associated with the source computing device. (Figs. 1, 3; Pars. [0008] “an electronic commerce system for proposing a personally-desired transaction price includes: a consumer terminal configured to input a desired transaction price in a desired transaction selection part of a consumer user interface for a consumer; a server; a blockchain client server configured to store, in a blockchain node, selling information of a commodity or service input from the server, inventory quantities to which a selling result of the commodity or service is applied, and at least one desired transaction smart contract; and the blockchain node configured to store therein the selling information of the commodity or service, the inventory quantities to which the selling result of the commodity or service is applied, and the at least one desired transaction smart contract, wherein the server includes… make a request to execute a first desired transaction smart contract stored in the blockchain node when the desired transaction price corresponds to any one of the prices to which the plurality of discount rates are applied and the inventory quantity corresponding to the desired transaction price is present and payment by the consumer is confirmed… display only a base price of the commodity or service as the first desired transaction smart contract stored in the blockchain node is executed.” [0015]-[0016], [0117])
Therefore, 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 to simply substitute presenting of transactions that include network acknowledgment (ACK) generated by a network computing devices based on receipt of assets for exchange to approve via users and merchants interface to agree and authorize the instant transaction (Figs. 10, 16; Pars. [0139], [0142] “the existing merchant payment gateway 104 pushes the acknowledgement of the approval/decline (ACK) to the existing merchant-consumer interface computing device 100 at step 7 where the consumer is notified whether the payment is approved or declined.” [0156]) of Spalding, Rosas in view of Choi in order perform currency exchange in real-time to eliminate any pricing volatility (Spalding, Par. [0088]) and to execute transactions based only preferred transaction parameter settings (Choi, Par. [0008]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Spalding in view of Rosas discloses all the limitations as described above.
Neither Spalding nor does Rosas explicitly disclose discloses wherein the determining the merchant preferences further comprises: interpreting a smart contract associated with the destination computing entity, wherein the smart contract includes a plurality of preferences of a merchant associated with the destination computing device.
Choi disclose discloses wherein the determining the merchant preferences further comprises: interpreting (“execute”) a smart contract associated with the destination computing entity, wherein the smart contract includes a plurality of preferences of a merchant associated with the destination computing device. (Figs. 1, 3, 6A; Pars. [0015] “a first desired transaction smart contract stored in a blockchain node is executed to sell the commodity or service” [0045], [0052], [0074]-[0075] “the signal flow when selling information of the commodity or service is registered in the blockchain node 240 includes inputting selling information of a commodity or service in the seller user interface of the second server 210 in step S 670, transmitting the selling information of the commodity or service input from the second server 210 to the blockchain client server 220 in step S 680, issuing at least one desired transaction smart contract from the received selling information of the commodity or service by the blockchain client server 220 and transmitting the at least one desired transaction smart contract to the blockchain node 240 in step S 690, storing the at least one desired transaction smart contract in the blockchain node 240 in step S 691…”)
Therefore, 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 to simply substitute presenting of transactions that include network acknowledgment (ACK) generated by a network computing devices based on receipt of assets for exchange to approve via users and merchants interface to agree and authorize the instant transaction (Figs. 10, 16; Pars. [0139], [0142] “the existing merchant payment gateway 104 pushes the acknowledgement of the approval/decline (ACK) to the existing merchant-consumer interface computing device 100 at step 7 where the consumer is notified whether the payment is approved or declined.” [0156]) of Spalding, Rosas in view of Choi in order perform currency exchange in real-time to eliminate any pricing volatility (Spalding, Par. [0088]) and to execute transactions based only preferred transaction parameter settings (Choi, Par. [0008]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PGPub Grassadonia et al. (US 2019/0034888 A1) discloses:
determine user preferences associated with the source computing entity (Figs. 1A, 10C, Pars. [0041] “While customer profiles 132 may store indications of user preferences,”[0043] “the payment service 108 may determine whether to send one or more previously expressed item preferences of the customer to the merchant.” [0058] “For example, when customer profile 132 includes multiple payment accounts (e.g., cryptocurrency and fiat currency), application 210 can set one of those accounts to be the default account for debits or credits when using an internal payment card.” [0130] “When customer 104 has more than one currency ledger associated with customer profile 132, application 210 can also include options to designate a currency as the default currency for transactions 647.” [0132])
PGPub Spalding et al. (US 2020/0013045 A1) discloses:
wherein the facilitating the secure interaction further comprises one or more of: sufficient staking of the cryptocurrency digital asset. (Abstract “When the first cryptocurrency is valid, the method further includes establishing a per unit value of the first cryptocurrency based on a per unit value of a known and trusted cryptocurrency of the system, obtaining a set of units of collateral cryptocurrency for a plurality of units of first cryptocurrency based on the established per unit value of the first cryptocurrency, and storing the set of units of collateral cryptocurrency in a secure stake pool for transactions utilizing the first cryptocurrency.”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WODAJO GETACHEW whose telephone number is (469)295-9069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00 CST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/WODAJO GETACHEW/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights