Detailed Action
Claims 1-8 are canceled.
Claims 9-16 are newly added.
Claims 9-16 are pending and are 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9-14 are objected to due to the following informalities: the claims lack transitional phrases (see MPEP 2111.03). Without a transitional phrase, a claim may be unclear because the transition is what signals whether the claim is open (e.g. ‘comprising’), closed (e.g. ‘consisting’), or partially open (‘consisting essentially of’); that is, whether unrecited additional elements/steps are included or excluded, such that the scope of the claim(s) are unclear.
Claim 15 is objected to in light of current form of the CRM claim language, such that the program is never executed. Current claim 15 reads “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to execute processing of: …”, where the program is never executed by the computer. The office would recommend an amendment to claim 1 as follows: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, which when executed by , causes the computer to perform a method
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 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 9-14 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claims 16 are directed to an apparatus claim (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claims 15 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claims 9, 15 and 16 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe determining whether a user satisfies a cryptocurrency-holding threshold and restricting access/use of a service if the threshold is not met, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk of unauthorized use, and commercial or legal interactions, including agreements in the form of contracts of relating to digital assets, and sales activities or behaviors of cryptocurrency transaction systems. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
Claim 9:
An information processing method in which a computer executes processing of: determining whether or not an amount of cryptocurrency held by a user is less than a predetermined number; and restricting the user's use of an application or service when it is determined that the amount held is less than the predetermined number.
Claim 15:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to execute processing of: determining whether or not an amount of cryptocurrency held by a user is less than a predetermined number; and restricting the user's use of an application or service when it is determined that the amount held is less than the predetermined number.
Claim 16:
An information processing apparatus, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to: determine whether or not an amount of cryptocurrency held by a user is less than a predetermined number; and restrict the user's use of an application or service when it is determined that the amount held is less than the predetermined number.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Here, the additional elements of a processor, and memory, individually and in combination, are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional elements merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The description of the additional elements evidences that they are generic and conventional elements used as tools to perform the abstract idea. The processor may be a generic and conventional processor (See Spec. pg. 9, ln. 19-24). The memory may be a generic and conventional memory (See Spec. pg. 9, ln. 23-25).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed previously, the description of the additional elements evidences that they are generic and conventional elements used as tools to perform the abstract idea. (See Spec pg. 9, ln. 19-24 and pg. 9, ln. 23-25). As such, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claims 10-14 have also been analyzed. However, the subject matter of these claims also fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 10 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes the abstract idea of claim 9. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the computer executes processing of acquiring the amount of cryptocurrency held by the user based on a wallet address of the user.
Claim 11 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes the abstract idea of claim 9. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the computer executes processing of acquiring the amount of cryptocurrency held by the user from an exchange used by the user.
Claim 12 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes the abstract idea of claim 9. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the cryptocurrency is a cryptocurrency with a predetermined upper limit of issuance set.
Claim 13 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes the abstract idea of claim 9. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the computer executes processing of restricting the use of the application or service in stages according to the amount of cryptocurrency held by the user.
Claim 14 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes the abstract idea of claim 9. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea because individually and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements.
wherein the computer executes processing of displaying on a user terminal a notification that the cryptocurrency should be purchased when it is determined that the amount held is less than the predetermined number.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ronca et al. (US20150363769A1) (hereinafter “Ronca”)
As per Claim 9, 15, and 16, Ronca teaches:
An information processing method in which a computer executes processing of: (“cryptocurrency server 130 may include processor 201, memory 202.” (Para. 0059); “set of instructions stored in memory 202 that may be executed by processor 201.” (Para. 0062)
determining whether or not an amount of cryptocurrency held by a user is less than a predetermined number; and (“before debiting a particular customer account 203, transaction engine 220 may determine whether a customer account 203 comprises a minimum amount of cryptocurrency to execute the requested cryptocurrency transaction. In certain embodiments, if a customer account 203 does not comprise the minimum amount of cryptocurrency, transaction engine 220 may not execute the cryptocurrency transaction.” (Para. 0125); “Transaction engine 220 may then determine whether the quantity of cryptocurrency exceeds the quantity of cryptocurrency associated with customer account 203. According to some embodiments, the requested cryptocurrency transaction may not be executed if customer account 203 does not comprise the equivalent quantity of cryptocurrency (i.e., if customer account 203 does not comprise sufficient funds).” (Para. 0133); “transaction engine 220 may determine whether customer account 203 comprises a quantity of cryptocurrency at least equivalent to the amount of cryptocurrency requested for the transaction (i.e., comprises sufficient funds to complete the requested transaction).” (Para. 0254))
restricting the user's use of an application or service when it is determined that the amount held is less than the predetermined number. (“For example, before debiting a particular customer account 203, transaction engine 220 may determine whether a customer account 203 comprises a minimum amount of cryptocurrency to execute the requested cryptocurrency transaction. In certain embodiments, if a customer account 203 does not comprise the minimum amount of cryptocurrency, transaction engine 220 may not execute the cryptocurrency transaction.” (Para. 0125); “the requested cryptocurrency transaction may not be executed if customer account 203 does not comprise the equivalent quantity of cryptocurrency (i.e., if customer account 203 does not comprise sufficient funds).” (Para. 0133); “if transaction engine 220 determines customer account 203 does not comprise the minimum amount of cryptocurrency, transaction engine 220 may proceed to step 712. In some embodiments, the method ends if customer account 203 does not comprise the minimum amount of cryptocurrency for the cryptocurrency transaction.” (Para. 0254)).
As per Claim 10, Ronca teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 9, wherein the computer executes processing of acquiring the amount of cryptocurrency held by the user based on a wallet address of the user. (“To provide a customer 102 with electronic access to cryptocurrency in a customer account 203, encoding engine 218 generally encodes, onto the payment instrument, such cryptocurrency information that may be used to identify the particular customer account 203.” (Para. 0116); “encoding engine 218 may encode a cryptocurrency address associated with customer account 203 onto the payment instrument. According to some embodiments, the public key or cryptocurrency address may be a sequence of letters and numbers associated with customer account 203 and may refer to an account number to which funds of cryptocurrency may be received and/or stored.” (Para. 0116); “identify the particular customer account 203 to be debited in the certain amount of cryptocurrency.” (Para. 0132)).
As per Claim 14, Ronca teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 9, wherein the computer executes processing of displaying on a user terminal a notification that the cryptocurrency should be purchased when it is determined that the amount held is less than the predetermined number. (“Cryptocurrency risk detection engine 232 may then determine whether the transaction is approved based at least upon the risk score. In some embodiments, cryptocurrency risk detection engine 232 compares the risk score to a threshold to determine whether the transaction is approved. For example, if the risk score is above the threshold, then it is not approved and if the risk score is below the threshold then it is approved. In some embodiments, the threshold may change depending on the customer, the third party, the type of cryptocurrency, the amount of cryptocurrency, or another factor relating to the transaction.” (Para. 0166); “the communication may be in the form of an email associated with the customer's account and device 110 may utilize GUI 114 to display a message that the transaction is not approved. This communication may also include one or more reasons why the transaction was or was not approved in certain embodiments.” (Para. 0167); “Cryptocurrency risk detection engine 232 may also determine whether the risk score indicates potentially suspicious activity by the third party and, if so, may notify the customer of the potentially suspicious activity.” (Para. 0155)).
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronca in view of Foster et al. (US11308487B1) (hereinafter “Foster”).
As per Claim 11, Ronca teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 9. . .
Ronca does not disclose:
“wherein the computer executes processing of acquiring the amount of cryptocurrency held by the user from an exchange used by the user” (claim 11).
However, as per Claim 11, Foster in the analogous art of digital asset transaction processing, teaches: “wherein the computer executes processing of acquiring the amount of cryptocurrency held by the user from an exchange used by the user”. (See “the digital asset exchange computer system at step S4014 may assign each respective amount of the digital asset token to each respective designated public address of the list of designated public addresses.” (Col. 200, ln. 51); “the digital asset exchange computer system, at step S4016, may confirm that each designated public address was assigned the respective amount of the digital asset token.” (Col. 201, ln. 8-10); “Transaction data, in embodiments, may include transaction information for one or more of the issued tokens of the digital asset token. The transaction information, may include at least one of: (1) respective public address information associated with the blockchain of the underlying digital asset, and/or (2) corresponding respective token balance information which may be associated with the aforementioned respective public address information. In embodiments, the transaction data may include transaction information for all of the issued tokens of the digital asset token.” (Col. 173, ln. 53-65)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Ronca, which performs cryptocurrency transaction processing using exchange-connected functionality, with the technique of Foster, an exchange computer system that monitors exchange account funds availability and updated digital asset balances, to acquiring the amount of cryptocurrency held by the user from an exchange used by the user. Therefore, the incentives of reducing latency in balance determination provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 12, Ronca teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 9. . .
Ronca does not disclose:
“wherein the cryptocurrency is a cryptocurrency with a predetermined upper limit of issuance set.” (claim 12).
However, as per Claim 12, Foster in the analogous art of digital asset transaction processing, teaches: “wherein the cryptocurrency is a cryptocurrency with a predetermined upper limit of issuance set”. (See “smart contract 1330 determines 1927 the total supply of digital asset tokens to be 100 million digital asset tokens.” (Col. 105, ln. 6-8); “set the total supply of digital asset tokens to 110 million, the original total supply 100 million plus the requested print amount of 10 million.” (Col. 105, ln. 12-16); “the digital asset token issuer system confirms that the total supply of digital asset tokens is set to the second amount.” (Col. 92, ln. 50-53)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Ronca, which processes cryptocurrency balances and transactions, with the technique of Foster, which expressly describes a digital asset having a configured total supply set to a defined amount and adjusted by system action, to include using a cryptocurrency with a predetermined upper limit of issuance set. Therefore, the incentives of improving predictability of asset management provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronca in view of Sells et al. (US20220188802A1) (hereinafter “Sells”).
As per Claim 13, Ronca teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 9, . . .
Ronca does not disclose:
“wherein the computer executes processing of restricting the use of the application or service in stages according to the amount of cryptocurrency held by the user” (claim 13).
However, as per Claim 13, Sells in the analogous art of cryptocurrency payments and distribution, teaches: “wherein the computer executes processing of restricting the use of the application or service in stages according to the amount of cryptocurrency held by the user”. (See “the amount can be based on the cryptocurrency balance of the user's cryptocurrency account.” (Para. 0096); “the amount can be based on the cryptocurrency balance of the user's cryptocurrency account. If the user's balance falls below a threshold (as dynamically determined by a machine learning model), the bank may adjust the amount based on an outcome of the machine learning model.” (Para. 0096); “rules or settings (such as minimum balance amounts, maximum amount thresholds, credit limits, and the like).” (Para. 0089)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Ronca, which applies predetermined thresholds and imposes different transaction-confirmation requirements depending on threshold ranges, with the technique of Sells, which uses threshold values and percentage-based adjustments tied to a users balance and rule/settings logic including minimum balance amounts and maximum thresholds, to include restricting the use of the application or service in stages according to the amount of cryptocurrency held by the user. Therefore, the incentives of tailoring restrictions to balance levels provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20210049567A1 (Bidgoli), discussing “The steps S408 to S412 can be repeated a plurality of times between user device i 410 and server computers 420 for any transaction amount z, so long as the transaction amount z is less than the current balance of the sending party. At any point in time, the balance of the user device i 410 and the server computer s 420 may total the 2q that each party deposited. Note that in embodiments, the payment phase can occur without communicating with the blockchain 440. Thus, no actual value may be transferred between the user device i 410 and the server computers 420. Instead, each party can maintain a state sti.s indicating what the balance should be.” (Para. 0069).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin A. Jimenez whose telephone number is (571) 270-3080. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/Justin Jimenez/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697