DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #18/876,221, filed on 03/04/2026.
Claims 1-20 are now pending and have been examined.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0330119 A1 in view of Gordon, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0022040 A1 and in further view of Moiyallah, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0166206 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Sherman teaches:
A computer-implemented method of crowd funding for innovation involving one or more entities, comprising steps of:
distributing via a computer system a proposal with a description of a project, an amount of funds requested, and a time frame for raising the funds (see at least Abstract, [0002] which recites distribution of a project proposal as described)
transferring ownership of the project to an entity or between entities (see at least [0034]-[0035] which teaches transfer of ownership of the project between entities)
receiving by the entity via the computer system contributions from contributors and for each of the contributions received (see Abstract, [0012], [0018], and [0020]-[0023])
converting the contribution to a corresponding amount of coin according to a conversion rate (see Abstract, Figure 5, [0021], and [0039] including such as Tables 1-6)
wherein the coin is a digital currency amount representing a fiat currency amount (see at least Abstract, Figure 5, [0021], [0023], [0036], and [0039] which male clear that the contributions are converted to a digital virtual currency/coins which represents real currency)
adding the adjusted contribution to the funds (see Abstract, [0023], and [0036] in which the contributions are adjusted by the incentive multipliers and converted to the virtual currency)
releasing via the computer system from the entity or entities to the requestor an amount of money corresponding with the amount of coin in the funds if the funds satisfy the amount of funds requested within the time frame and within a bank amount of funds available for the project (see Abstract, [0002], and [0032]-[0033] in which the funds are released to the requestor in the manner described)
determining if the project is successful after the money is released (see Abstract, [0017], [0021], and [0035]-[0037])
Sherman, however, does not appear to specify:
performing a blockchain operation on the coin
Shu teaches:
performing a blockchain operation on the coin (see at least Abstract and [0049]-[0053] in which a blockchain operation is used to convert the real world currency into the digital currency)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Shu with Sherman because Sherman already teaches conversion of real world currencies into digital currencies, and using a blockchain operation, which is commonly applied to digital currencies, would allow for staking or secure performance of the digital currency with a validated ownership which would minimize potential fraud and allow for easy transfer of ownership between entities.
Sherman and Shu, however, does not appear to specify:
generating and applying a unique coin identifier to the coin
saving the unique coin identifier in an immutable blockchain record
verifying the unique coin identifier prior to adding the coin to the funds
authorizing or declining the adding of the coin to the funds based on the verifying
Moiyallah teaches:
generating and applying a unique coin identifier to the coin, saving the unique coin identifier in an immutable blockchain record, verifying the unique coin identifier prior to adding the coin to the funds, and authorizing or declining the adding of the coin to the funds based on the verifying (see at least [0140]-[0145] in which a unique coin ID is saved to the blockchain and is used for verification of the coin using the ID for a transaction using the coin prior to the authorizing of the use)
**The examiner notes that Sherman already teaches converting the fiat currency contribution to a digital currency and Shu already teaches performing of a blockchain operation on the coin, so Moiyallah is being used to teach other aspects of the amendment.**
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Moiyallah with Sherman and Shu because Sherman already teaches conversion of fiat currencies into digital currencies for a contribution to a project, and Shu teaches using a blockchain operation, and the validation process of Moiyallah would ensure that the conversion and adding is authorized so that there are no issues with ownership or errors.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 1
Sherman further teaches:
wherein the converting step uses current exchange rates at the time of the contribution as the conversion rate from a currency of the contributor country to a currency of the requestor country (see at least [0024], [0033], [0039] including Table 3, and claim 6)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 1
Sherman further teaches:
limiting each of the contributions to no more than a particular percentage of the amount of funds requested (see [0022])
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 1
Sherman further teaches:
wherein the converting step comprises using a single type of currency for the coin (see [0023] and claim 8)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 1
Sherman further teaches:
wherein the transferring step includes transferring intellectual property rights in the project to the entity or between entities (see [0034]-[0035])
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 1
Sherman further teaches:
making available to a pool of potential contributors a particular amount of coin in the bank (see Figure 6, [0009], [0020], [0026], [0028], [0036], and [0039] Table 4)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 1
Sherman further teaches:
sending to a pool of potential contributors particular amounts of the coin (see Figure 6, [0009], [0026], [0028], [0039] Table 4, claim 11)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 11
Sherman further teaches:
wherein the sending step further comprises licensing the particular amounts of the coin to the pool of potential contributors, wherein the license restricts usage of the coin to crowd funding of projects within the entity or entities and specifies a time limit when the coin can be used for the crowd funding (see [0027]-[0028])
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 11
Sherman further teaches:
electronically displaying a user interface to distribute the particular amounts of coin (see Figure 6 and [0028])
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 13
Sherman further teaches:
displaying within the user interface an amount of coin and a time limit to spend the amount of coin (see Figure 6 and [0028] in which the interface displays an amount of coin and a time limit to spend the amount of coin)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 1
Sherman further teaches:
electronically displaying a user interface identifying the proposal (see Figures 4, 5, and 8 and [0015]-[0017], and [0021])
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 15
Sherman further teaches:
displaying within the user interface an indication of the funds received for the proposal and a time remaining in the time frame (see Figures 4, 5, and 8, [0015]-[0018], and [0021]
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 1
Sherman further teaches:
electronically displaying a user interface to receive the contributions (see Figures 5 and 8, [0018], and [0021])
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 17
Sherman further teaches:
displaying within the user interface an amount of coin remaining for the contributor and a time remaining to spend the remaining coin (see Figures 5 and 8, [0016]-[0018] and [0021])
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 1
Sherman further teaches:
if the project is successful, distributing by the entity or entities to the contributors, or selected ones of the contributors, a bonus comprising a set amount of coin (see [0002], [0036], and claim 19)
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 1
Sherman further teaches:
if the project is successful, receiving from the contributors feedback relating to the project (see [0037])
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0330119 A1 in view of Gordon, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0022040 A1 and in further view of Moiyallah, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0166206 A1 and in further view of Afanch, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0394619 A1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah teaches:
the method of claim 1
Sherman further teaches:
selectively adjusting the contribution by an incentive multiplier (see Figure 5, [0021], [0023], [0036], and [0039] including Table 3)
Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah, however, does not appear to specify:
performing a blockchain operation on the incentive multiplier
Afanch teaches:
performing a blockchain operation on the incentive multiplier (see at least [0018] in which a reward multiplier is applied by the blockchain application on the currency as part of the conversion process)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Afanch with Sherman, Shu, and Moiyallah because Sherman already teaches conversion of real world currencies into digital currencies and teaches incentive multipliers and Shu already teaches using a blockchain operation, and the blockchain operation being applied to the incentive multiplier would allow for blockchain-side application of the multiplier, which would securitize the process and make the process more efficient since more of the processes occur on the blockchain side.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sherman, Shu, Moiyallah, and Afanch teaches:
the method of claim 2
Sherman further teaches:
if the project is successful, distributing the funds by the entity or entities to the contributors, adjusted by the corresponding incentive multipliers, and converted from the coin by the corresponding conversion rate (see Abstract, [0002], and [0036])
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sherman, Shu, Moiyallah, and Afanch teaches:
the method of claim 3
Sherman further teaches:
disbursing the funds converted from coin using the same exchange rates used to convert the contributions to the coin (see at least [0024] in which the same exchange rates used to convert the coin are used to convert the contributions)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sherman, Shu, Moiyallah, and Afanch teaches:
the method of claim 2
Sherman further teaches:
wherein the adjusting step comprises multiplying the contribution by a value greater than one and less than or equal to two as the incentive multiplier (see at least [0021] in which the multiplier could be such as 1.5)
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103
The applicant’s arguments in light of the amendments to the claims have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated any new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights