92DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 5/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 and 11-22 are pending.
Claims 1-8 and 11-22 have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1, 11 and 19 are amended.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is the applicant’s position that “the claim is not directed to that alleged abstract idea, because the claim's focus is the specific technical mechanism by which the intermediation engine manages indications and memory in a constrained virtual-platform environment.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim(s) recite(s) currency exchange. Specifically, the claims recite “determining, via an [intermediation engine], the [intermediation engine] being external to the [virtual platform], that an exchange has occurred within the [virtual platform] via a [first exchange engine] implemented internal to the [virtual platform], the exchange being of a first data record, or a first indication thereof, for a first amount of a first electronic currency associated with the [virtual platform], the first data record associated with a computing device external to the virtual platform, the exchange associated with a first account profile associated with the [computing device], wherein exchanges implemented by the [first exchange engine] must use the first electronic currency provided by the virtual platform and the first electronic currency is restricted from leaving the [virtual platform]; receiving, at the [intermediation engine], a first indication of the first amount of the first electronic currency; acquiring, via the [intermediation engine], a second data record at the [virtual platform] by providing one or more commands to the [virtual platform] to acquire the second data record via the [first exchange engine] in exchange for the first amount of the first electronic currency; receiving, at the [intermediation engine] from the [virtual platform], a second indication of the second data record in conjunction with the exchange of the second data record for the first amount of the first electronic currency; maintaining, at a first [memory] associated with the [intermediation engine], the second indication of the second data record in association with the first indication of the first amount of the first electronic currency; exchanging, via the [intermediation engine] external to the [virtual platform] and via a second exchange engine external to the [virtual platform], the second indication of the second data record for a second amount of a second electronic currency used external to the [virtual platform], the second amount received external to the [virtual platform]; providing the second indication of the second data record to the [virtual platform] to transfer the second data record from a third account profile associated with the [intermediation engine] to a second account profile; transferring, via the [intermediation engine], external to the [virtual platform], at least a portion of the second amount to a second [memory] associated with the [computing device]; and in response to receipt, from the [virtual platform], of a third indication that the second data record has been transferred to the second account profile, clearing the first [memory] of the second indication of the second data record and the first indication of the first amount of the first electronic currency.”, which is “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for conducting currency exchange. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
It is also the applicant’s position that “the claim integrates any such exception into a practical application.” because “the claim recites a particular solution to a particular technical problem.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
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), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of intermediation engine, virtual platform, computing device, memory, controller, and storage medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of conducting currency exchange) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. 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 claim uses a intermediation engine to perform currency exchange. Upon completion of the exchange transaction, the intermediation engine clears the transaction record from its memory. Currency exchange is a business process. Utilizing computer to automate this process does not improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The applicant argues that “McRO teaches that claims are not directed to an abstract idea when they recite a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, rather than the idea of the outcome itself. The amended claim satisfies that standard.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
McRO is directed to a technological improvement in performing animation techniques. Unlike McRO, claim 1 recites a business process of currency exchange. The claims are not in any way similar to McRo as the claims do not make any technological improvement to any algorithm in performing improvement to animation techniques. Clearly this is simply a gratuitous citation to a case that was held as eligible when the facts clearly argue against any kind of McRo improvement. The claims clearly directed to currency exchange which is an abstract idea.
The applicant also argues that “Amended claim 1 also recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.” because “claim 1 recites a specific and non-conventional arrangement of components and operations,... it recites a defined technological arrangement that manages memory usage in a way the prior claim did not.”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using intermediation engine, virtual platform, computing device, memory, controller, and storage medium to perform currency exchange steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S. C. § 112(b), the amendment overcomes the previous rejection. However, it raises a new rejection.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §103, the arguments have fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is the applicant’s position that the cited prior arts “Magnuson and Joshua do not teach or suggest” the following features:
(1) an intermediation engine external to the virtual platform;
(2) a first exchange engine implemented internal to the virtual platform;
(3) a first electronic currency provided by the virtual platform and restricted from leaving the virtual platform;
(4) acquisition of a second data record at the virtual platform by providing commands from the intermediation engine to the virtual platform;
(5) receipt and association, at first memory, of a first indication of the first amount and a second indication of the second data record;
(6) exchange of the second indication externally via a second exchange engine external to the virtual platform;
(7) providing the second indication to the virtual platform to transfer the second data record from a third account profile associated with the intermediation engine to a second account profile; and
(8) clearing first memory only in response to receipt of a third indication that the transfer has occurred.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to “(1) an intermediation engine external to the virtual platform;”, Magnuson Fig. 2 illustrates “Reward Program(s) 11x” and “intermediary 201”, the “intermediary 201” is external to “Reward Program(s) 11x”, “Reward Program(s) 11x” maps to “virtual platform” and “intermediary 201” maps to “intermediation engine”. Therefore, Magnuson teaches the feature.
With respect to “(2) a first exchange engine implemented internal to the virtual platform;” it describe the structure of the virtual platform. However, virtual platform does not positively perform any action in the claim. Therefore, this structure of virtual platform does not entitle patentable weight.
With respect to “(3) a first electronic currency provided by the virtual platform and restricted from leaving the virtual platform;” Magnuson ¶0016 discloses “Using the exchange provides a capability to determine and exchange value between two or more retailer rewards programs with disparate point value assignments. The exchange further allows multiple retailers to participate in the points exchange program without requiring the retailers to set up relationships with each other.” and ¶0025 discloses “the customer is a member of program A 110 and has 35,000 points and the customer would like to exchange some or all of programs A 110 points to obtain points for program x 11n, of which the customer is also a member.” Magnuson demonstrates that one reward program point cannot be used in another reward program without exchange. In other words, program A 110 points can be used in the program a 110. In order to use the program A 110 points in program A 111, the program A 110 points must be exchanged to the program A 111 points. Therefore, Magnuson teaches the feature.
With respect to “(4) acquisition of a second data record at the virtual platform by providing commands from the intermediation engine to the virtual platform;” Magnuson ¶0038 discloses “requested point value determiner 220 will utilize a network connection such as cloud 126 to access the reward program(s) 11x to obtain the present value of the requested points 206.” Therefore, Magnuson teaches this feature.
With respect to “(5) receipt and association, at first memory, of a first indication of the first amount and a second indication of the second data record;” Magnuson ¶0039 discloses “...point-to-currency exchanger 215 will receive the present value for each point of the requested points 206 from requested point value determiner 220 and change that value into the intermediary currency. In general, the intermediary currency is a system specific currency utilized by intermediary system 201 to provide a standardized value system for any points that are being exchanged.” Therefore, Magnuson teaches this feature.
With respect to “(6) exchange of the second indication externally via a second exchange engine external to the virtual platform;”. Magnuson Fig. 1 illustrates each program (virtual platform) is separated. Therefore, Magnuson teaches this feature.
With respect to “(7) providing the second indication to the virtual platform to transfer the second data record from a third account profile associated with the intermediation engine to a second account profile;” This renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art which entity is been claimed to perform this action. See this office action 112B rejection section for detail.
With respect to “(8) clearing first memory only in response to receipt of a third indication that the transfer has occurred.” Joshua col 21 lines 23-27 discloses “In response to switching from the open state to the closed state, the controller 202 may automatically delete from memory any data of the order already received, thereby reducing use of memory resources of the system 200.” Therefore, Magnuson in view of Joshua teaches this feature.
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 1-8 and 11-22 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 1-8 are directed to a method, claims 11-18 are directed to a system, and claims 19-22 are directed to a CRM. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) currency exchange. Specifically, the claims recite “determining, via an [intermediation engine], the [intermediation engine] being external to the [virtual platform], that an exchange has occurred within the [virtual platform] via a [first exchange engine] implemented internal to the [virtual platform], the exchange being of a first data record, or a first indication thereof, for a first amount of a first electronic currency associated with the [virtual platform], the first data record associated with a computing device external to the virtual platform, the exchange associated with a first account profile associated with the [computing device], wherein exchanges implemented by the [first exchange engine] must use the first electronic currency provided by the virtual platform and the first electronic currency is restricted from leaving the [virtual platform]; receiving, at the [intermediation engine], a first indication of the first amount of the first electronic currency; acquiring, via the [intermediation engine], a second data record at the [virtual platform] by providing one or more commands to the [virtual platform] to acquire the second data record via the [first exchange engine] in exchange for the first amount of the first electronic currency; receiving, at the [intermediation engine] from the [virtual platform], a second indication of the second data record in conjunction with the exchange of the second data record for the first amount of the first electronic currency; maintaining, at a first [memory] associated with the [intermediation engine], the second indication of the second data record in association with the first indication of the first amount of the first electronic currency; exchanging, via the [intermediation engine] external to the [virtual platform] and via a second exchange engine external to the [virtual platform], the second indication of the second data record for a second amount of a second electronic currency used external to the [virtual platform], the second amount received external to the [virtual platform]; providing the second indication of the second data record to the [virtual platform] to transfer the second data record from a third account profile associated with the [intermediation engine] to a second account profile; transferring, via the [intermediation engine], external to the [virtual platform], at least a portion of the second amount to a second [memory] associated with the [computing device]; and in response to receipt, from the [virtual platform], of a third indication that the second data record has been transferred to the second account profile, clearing the first [memory] of the second indication of the second data record and the first indication of the first amount of the first electronic currency.”, which is “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for conducting currency exchange. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
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), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of intermediation engine, virtual platform, computing device, memory, controller, and storage medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of conducting currency exchange) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using intermediation engine, virtual platform, computing device, memory, controller, and storage medium to perform currency exchange steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 12 and 20 describe exchange amount. Dependent claims 3-5, 13-15 and 21 describe exchange rate. Dependent claims 6, 16 and 22 describe exchange based rule set of the computing device. Dependent claims 7 and 17 describe exchanging the second currency based on demand. Dependent claims 8 and 18 describe monitoring and notifying currency exchange rate change. These claims further recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of intermediation engine, virtual platform, computing device, memory, controller, and storage medium to perform merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims simply recite the concept of currency exchange. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The use of a intermediation engine, virtual platform, computing device, memory, controller, and storage medium to perform as tools to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
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 1-8 and 11-22 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.
Unclear
Claims 1, 11 and 19 recite limitation “exchanging, via the intermediation engine external to the virtual platform and via a second exchange engine external to the virtual platform, the second indication of the second data record for a second amount of a second electronic currency used external to the virtual platform, the second amount received external to the virtual platform;” This renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the exchange is performed by the intermediation engine or a second exchange engine.
Claims 1, 11 and 19 recite limitation “providing the second indication of the second data record to the virtual platform to transfer the second data record from a third account profile associated with the intermediation engine to a second account profile;” Specification PGPub ¶0157 discloses “the second client device 118 may provide the indication 702 of the second data record 132 to the virtual platform 104, for example in association with the second account profile 122 associated with the second client device 118, and the indication 702 of the second data record 132 may be exchanged for the second data record 132,” However, the second client device is not in the claim. This renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art which entity is been claimed to perform this action.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as:
“exchanging, via the intermediation engine, external to the virtual platform, the second indication of the second data record for a second amount of a second electronic currency used external to the virtual platform, the second amount received external to the virtual platform;”
“providing, by the intermediation engine, communication to the virtual platform;”
Dependent claims 2-8, 12-18 and 20-22 are also rejected as each depends from claims 1, 11 and 19 respectively.
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 1-3, 6, 11-13, 16, 19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20190244237A1 (“Magnuson, Jr. et al.”) in view of US Grant Publication US11915315B1 (“Joshua et al.”).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 19, Magnuson, Jr. et al. discloses:
a controller; and (Fig. 5 item 506)
a computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions that, when executed by the controller, (Fig. 5 items 508, 510 and 512) causes the controller to perform a set of operations comprising:
determining, via an intermediation engine, the intermediation engine being external to the virtual platform, that an exchange has occurred within the virtual platform via a first exchange engine implemented internal to the virtual platform, the exchange being of a first data record, or a first indication thereof, for a first amount of a first electronic currency associated with the virtual platform, the first data record associated with a computing device external to the virtual platform, the exchange associated with a first account profile associated with the computing device, wherein exchanges implemented by the first exchange engine must use the first electronic currency provided by the virtual platform and the first electronic currency is restricted from leaving the virtual platform; (Fig. 1 item 101; Fig. 3, item 301; Fig 4 step 405, ¶¶0017-18, ¶0053)
receiving, at the intermediation engine, a first indication of the first amount of the first electronic currency; (Fig. 4 item 425; ¶0067)
acquiring, via the intermediation engine, a second data record at the virtual platform by providing one or more commands to the virtual platform to acquire the second data record via the first exchange engine in exchange for the first amount of the first electronic currency; (Fig. 4 items 430; ¶0038 and ¶0069)
receiving, at the intermediation engine from the virtual platform, a second indication of the second data record in conjunction with the exchange of the second data record for the first amount of the first electronic currency; (Fig. 4 items 430; ¶0069)
maintaining, at a first memory associated with the intermediation engine, the second indication of the second data record in association with the first indication of the first amount of the first electronic currency;(Fig. 5 items 508 and 510; Fig. 2; Fig. 4 step 415, ¶0030 and ¶0062)
exchanging, via the intermediation engine external to the virtual platform and via a second exchange engine external to the virtual platform, the second indication of the second data record for a second amount of a second electronic currency used external to the virtual platform, the second amount received external to the virtual platform; (Fig. 2; ¶0026 and ¶0074)
providing the second indication of the second data record to the virtual platform to transfer the second data record from a third account profile associated with the intermediation engine to a second account profile; (¶0038)
transferring, via the intermediation engine, external to the virtual platform, at least a portion of the second amount to a second memory associated with the computing device; and (abs; Fig. 4 step 445; ¶0073)
Magnuson, Jr. et al. does not explicitly disclose:
in response to receipt, from the virtual platform, of a third indication that the second data record has been transferred to the second account profile, clearing the first memory of the second indication of the second data record and the first indication of the first amount of the first electronic currency.
However, Joshua et al. discloses:
in response to receipt, from the virtual platform, of a third indication that the second data record has been transferred to the second account profile, clearing the first memory of the second indication of the second data record and the first indication of the first amount of the first electronic currency. (col 21 lines 23-27)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Intermediary to Manage A Point Exchange Across A Plurality of Different Reward Programs of Magnuson, Jr. et al. by including clearing data from the memory in accordance with the teaching of Joshua et al.. This modification “reducing use of memory resources of the system” (Joshua et al. col 21 lines 26-27).
Examiner note: the examiner interprets that all actions in the claims are performed by the intermediation engine. Virtual platform is a destination that transmitting data with the intermediation engine. However, the virtual platform and its components such as first exchange engine do not actively perform any action in the claim. Magnuson, Jr. et al. Fig. 1 item 110, 111, 112...11n maps to virtual platforms, Fig. 2 item 201 maps to intermediation engine being external to the virtual platforms. Fig. 1 item 101 maps to the computing device external to the virtual platforms.
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 20, Magnuson, Jr. et al. in view of Joshua et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Magnuson, Jr. et al. further discloses:
determining the second amount of the second electronic currency from the first amount of the first electronic currency based on an exchange rate between the second electronic currency and the first electronic currency. (Fig. 4 step 435, ¶0070)
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Magnuson, Jr. et al. in view of Joshua et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Magnuson, Jr. et al. further discloses:
determining the exchange rate via a currency engine external to the intermediation engine and the virtual platform. (Fig. 4 step 435, ¶0070)
Regarding claims 6, 16 and 22, Magnuson, Jr. et al. in view of Joshua et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Magnuson, Jr. et al. further discloses:
exchanging the second data record for the second amount of the second electronic currency based on a rule set associated with the computing device.(¶0028)
Claims 4-5, 14-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20190244237A1 (“Magnuson, Jr. et al.”) in view of US Grant Publication US11915315B1 (“Joshua et al.”), and in further view of US Application Publication US20220114664A1 (“Curtis”).
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 21, Magnuson, Jr. et al. in view of Joshua et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Magnuson, Jr. et al. and Joshua et al. do not explicitly disclose:
exchanging the second data record for the second amount of the second electronic currency after a given time period; and
determining the given time period by estimating changes in an exchange rate between the second electronic currency and the first electronic currency.
However, Curtis discloses:
exchanging the second data record for the second amount of the second electronic currency after a given time period; and (abs; ¶0017 and ¶0020)
determining the given time period by estimating changes in an exchange rate between the second electronic currency and the first electronic currency. (abs; ¶0017 and ¶0020)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Magnuson, Jr. et al. and Joshua et al. by including exchanging at optima time based on exchange rate in accordance with the teaching of Curtis. This modification optimizes resource utilization of various resources (Curtis ¶0020).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Magnuson, Jr. et al. in view of Joshua et al., and in further view of Curtis discloses all limitations as described above. Curtis further discloses:
determining one or more of the given time period and the estimated changes in the exchange rate using one or more machine learning algorithms. (abs; ¶0017 and ¶0020)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Magnuson, Jr. et al. and Joshua et al. by including exchanging at optima time based on exchange rate in accordance with the teaching of Curtis. This modification optimizes resource utilization of various resources (Curtis ¶0020).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20190244237A1 (“Magnuson, Jr. et al.”) in view of US Grant Publication US11915315B1 (“Joshua et al.”), and in further view of US Application Publication US20190172130A1 (“Gurin”).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Magnuson, Jr. et al. in view of Joshua et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Magnuson, Jr. et al. and Joshua et al. do not explicitly disclose:
exchanging the second data record for the second amount of the second electronic currency after a given time period; and
determining the given time period by estimating a demand for the second data record as a function of time.
However, Gurin discloses:
exchanging the second data record for the second amount of the second electronic currency after a given time period; and (abs)
determining the given time period by estimating a demand for the second data record as a function of time. (abs)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Magnuson, Jr. et al. and Joshua et al. by including determining exchanging time based on function of time relating to the second data record in accordance with the teaching of Gurin. This modification enables the system to pre-determine an optima exchange time based on demand of second data record.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20190244237A1 (“Magnuson, Jr. et al.”) in view of US Grant Publication US11915315B1 (“Joshua et al.”), and in further view of US Application Publication US20150363769A1 (“Ronca et al.”).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Magnuson, Jr. et al. in view of Joshua et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Magnuson, Jr. et al. further discloses:
monitoring a plurality of electronic currencies; and (¶0016)
Magnuson, Jr. et al. and Joshua et al. do not explicitly disclose:
notifying the computing device of changes in one or more the plurality of currencies that affects exchange rates therebetween.
However, Ronca et al. discloses:
notifying the computing device of changes in one or more the plurality of currencies that affects exchange rates therebetween. (¶0075)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Magnuson, Jr. et al. and Joshua et al. by including notifying the computing device when exchange rates changes in accordance with the teaching of Ronca et al.. This modification enables the system to inform customer regarding the change of exchange rate. So, the customer can take action accordingly and promptly.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20240232884A1(“Jayaraman”) discloses a system for transforming a resource from a first type into a second type. The system receives login credentials and a request for remote access to a user account associated with an entity utilizing a centralized network. The system authenticates the login credentials and grants access to the user account. The system receives a unique identifier for a first type of electronic digital certificate resource associated with a decentralized ledger and stores a record of it. Once the system receives a request to initiate an interaction between the decentralized ledger and the user account, the system determines a balance of the first type of resource on the decentralized ledger using the stored record of the unique identifier. The system transforms the resource from the first type to a second type and completes the requested interaction between the decentralized ledger and the user account.
US20210133735A1 (“Maim”) discloses Token-based transactional systems and methods. It proposes a network transactional system, comprising a set of token nodes (TN), a set of user nodes (UN) and a set of provider nodes (PN), the nodes being capable of executing an executable contract for a user node to obtain token account units (Voucher Tokens) by reserving (R) reserve account units according to a value of the token units which itself varies according to the reserve, the number of token units in circulation and the reserve ratio (RR). A provider node is associated with each token node and the token is representative of a product or asset (good, service, right or other benefit) of the provider, or a group of such products or assets.
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 YINGYING ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5308. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm ET.
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 on 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.
/YINGYING ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights