Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/878,716

A SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PERFORMING CASH INSTRUMENT TRANSACTION INVOLVING DIGITAL CURRENCY

Non-Final OA §101§103
Filed
Dec 24, 2024
Examiner
OJIAKU, CHIKAODINAKA
Art Unit
3696
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
45%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
54%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 45% of resolved cases
45%
Career Allow Rate
207 granted / 456 resolved
-6.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
502
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
35.1%
-4.9% vs TC avg
§103
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
§102
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
§112
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 456 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §103
DETAILED ACTION Status of the Claims . The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The following is in response to a application dated December 24, 2024. Claim 1-10 are canceled. Claims 11-18 are pending. All pending claims are examined. 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 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim recites abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Analysis The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. Claim 11 which is illustrative of independent claim 16 that recites: Claim 11 recites As to claim 11. (New) A method for performing a cash instrument transaction involving digital currency using a blockchain-based system, the method comprising the steps of: generating a request for a cash instrument transaction, wherein the request includes transaction amount, mode of transaction, user account details, and merchant account details, by a payment engine on a user device; transmitting the request to a payment application through a payment gateway, by the payment engine; authenticating transaction details using an API call to a fraud detection application for identifying fraudulent transactions, wherein the authentication includes verifying user account details and transaction parameters, by the payment engine; initiating the cash instrument transaction for transferring an amount from the user account to the merchant account upon successful authentication, by the payment application; storing transaction details, including user account information, merchant account information, transaction amount, and transaction authentication status, on a blockchain, upon completion of the transaction, by the crypto transfer engine; determining eligibility for receiving digital currency based on predefined parameters, including transaction amount thresholds, transaction type, and merchant-specific criteria, by the crypto transfer engine; transferring a determined amount of digital currency to a crypto account of the user, based on eligibility, wherein the type of digital currency is dynamically selected based on user preference or default system settings, and the transfer is executed directly or through a digital currency exchange; and facilitating operations of digital currencies, including buying, selling, investing, and trading, through a crypto operating system accessible via the user device. The invention as claimed recites an abstract idea that is a method of organizing of human activity that is a fundamental economic practice of funds transfer (App. Spec. paras. 0004-0005; Fig. 5) based on pre-defined rules. These steps describe the process a person would take to set up funds transfer in response to a request for payment of a transaction. Further, this is an example of steps performed by the human mind as mental processes because other than the generic components, nothing precludes these steps from practically being performed as mental processes. For example, there is the generating of a request, transmitting the request to payment application, authenticating the request and initiating the transfer It suggests activity that represents longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the internet. See CyberSource Corp. b. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Step 2A Prong 2 The next step is to determine if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components (e.g. processor; network, see App. specification para. 0040-0049; Figs. 4-5). This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components (e.g. processor). The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B The additional elements recited include a payment gateway, crypto transfer engine and user device are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. (see App. Spec. para. 0036 – “ The systems described herein, may be realized by hardware elements, software elements and/or combinations thereof. For example, the devices and components illustrated in the example embodiments of inventive concepts may be implemented in one or more general-use computers or special-purpose computers, such as a processor, a controller, an arithmetic logic unit (ALU), a digital signal processor, a microcomputer, a field programmable array (FPA), a programmable logic unit (PLU), a microprocessor or any device which may execute instructions and respond.”). Dependent claims 12-15 and 17-18 provide additonal details that describe the invention. For example, claims 12-14 describe details about the transaction parameters. These details do not address the issues raised in the independent claims and therefore do not amount to a technical improvement or an integration of a practical application. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 11-18 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedlander, USP Pub. No. 20200342424 in view of Ronca, USP. Pub. No. 20150363769 As to claim 11. (New) Friedlander discloses A method for performing a cash instrument transaction involving digital currency using a blockchain-based system Friedlander, Abstract), the method comprising the steps of: generating a request for a cash instrument transaction, wherein the request includes transaction amount, mode of transaction, user account details, and merchant account details, by a payment engine on a user device(Friedlander, para. 0021, Fig. 2); transmitting the request to a payment application through a payment gateway, by the payment engine (Friedlander, para. 0021, Fig. 2); authenticating transaction details using an API call to a fraud detection application for identifying fraudulent transactions, wherein the authentication includes verifying user account details and transaction parameters, by the payment engine(Friedlander, paras. 0020-0022, 0027-0029); initiating the cash instrument transaction for transferring an amount from the user account to the merchant account upon successful authentication, by the payment application (Friedlander, para. 0011); determining eligibility for receiving digital currency based on predefined parameters, including transaction amount thresholds, transaction type, and merchant-specific criteria, by the crypto transfer engine(Friedlander, paras. 0026-0029); transferring a determined amount of digital currency to a crypto account of the user, based on eligibility, wherein the type of digital currency is dynamically selected based on user preference or default system settings, and the transfer is executed directly or through a digital currency exchange(Friedlander, paras. 0027-0029); and facilitating operations of digital currencies, including buying, selling, investing, and trading, through a crypto operating system accessible via the user device(Friedlander, paras. 0027-0029; Figs. 3-4). Friedlander does not disclose but Ronca discloses storing transaction details, including user account information, merchant account information, transaction amount, and transaction authentication status, on a blockchain, upon completion of the transaction, by the crypto transfer engine (Ronca, paras. 0061, 0065). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Friedlander with Ronca because it would result in an improvement of secure processing of transactions by optimizing the conditions for the transfer request. As to claim 12. (New) Friedlander discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the request for the cash instrument transaction includes parameters defined by one or a combination of a merchant, a payment engine service provider, and a payment application service provider(Friedlander, para. 0021, Fig. 2). As to claim 13. (New) Friedlander discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the fraud detection application verifies transaction details, including user account details, merchant account details, and transaction authenticity, to identify fraudulent transactions(Friedlander, paras. 0020-0022, 0027-0029). As to claim 14. (New) Friedlander discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein eligibility for receiving digital currency is determined based on a combination of transaction amount thresholds, transaction type, and predefined parameters set by a merchant or payment engine service provider(Friedlander, paras. 0026-0029). As to claim 15. (New) Friedlander discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the type of digital currency is selected dynamically based on parameters defined by one of a merchant input or a default input provided by a payment engine service provider(Friedlander, paras. 0027-0029). As to claims 16-18 contain limitations similar to claims 11-15 and are rejected in like manner. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM EST. 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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 571 272-3955. 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. /CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 24, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103
Mar 03, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597078
ASSEMBLING PARAMETERS TO COMPUTE TAXES FOR CROSS-BORDER SALES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597079
ASSEMBLING PARAMETERS TO COMPUTE TAXES FOR CROSS-BORDER SALES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597029
System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Authenticating a Transaction
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12567109
Lean Level Support for Trading Strategies
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12443940
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING AN AUGMENTED PERSONAL MESSAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 14, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
45%
Grant Probability
54%
With Interview (+8.2%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 456 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month