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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Exemplary claim 1 recite(s):
A resource exchange processing method, applied to a digital platform for resource exchange, resources exchanged comprising at least one of virtual resources or money, the method comprising:
receiving a resource exchange request sent by a requester through a first device, and
extracting resource exchange conditions and responder selection criteria contained within the resource exchange request, wherein the responder selection criteria comprise at least one of a user tier, a resource exchange risk assessment value, an exchange amount, a resource possession, an exchange fee, or a gain rate;
determining an exchange responder that meets the resource exchange conditions and the responder selection criteria; and
performing a resource exchange between the requester and the exchange responder based on the resource exchange conditions.
The claims describe an abstract idea in the form of fundamental economic principles or practices. Receiving a request virtual resources or money, extracting conditions of the request, selecting conditions for the exchange, determining an exchange responder, and performing a resource exchange.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a)-c) is that the features fall within the fundamental economic principles or practices groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts for methods of organizing human activity.
The claim recites additional elements such “applied to a digital platform”, and “a first device” which are mere instruction to use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or above merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fail to add an inventive concept to the claims - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements therefore amount to insignificant extra solution activity which fail to impose any meaningful limits on the claims- see MPEP 2106.05(g). When viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use and/or represent insignificant extra-solution activity -see MPEP 2106.05(g), MPEP 2106.05(h).
The extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and/or amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computing components. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept. The remaining claims and/or claim language is addressed by similar rationale as provided above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220180355 to Meredith
Regarding claim 1, Meredith teaches a resource exchange processing method, applied to a digital platform for resource exchange, resources exchanged comprising at least one of virtual resources or money, the method comprising:
receiving a resource exchange request sent by a requester through a first device (¶ 36, 51, receiving request),and
extracting resource exchange conditions and responder selection criteria contained within the resource exchange request (¶ 39, 43, extraction of exchange conditions and criteria); wherein the responder selection criteria comprise at least one of a user tier, a resource exchange risk assessment value, an exchange amount, a resource possession, an exchange fee, or a gain rate (¶ 11, 39, 42-43, criteria including exchange rate);
determining an exchange responder that meets the resource exchange conditions and the responder selection criteria (¶ 39, 49, determination of responder); and
performing a resource exchange between the requester and the exchange responder based on the resource exchange conditions (¶ 39, exchange based on exchange conditions).
Regarding claim 2, 9,
Meredith teaches:
wherein determining the exchange responder that meets the resource exchange conditions and the responder selection criteria comprises:
determining candidate exchangers that meet the responder selection criteria (¶ 36-39, 42-43, 49, 51, determining exchangers meeting criteria);
displaying resource exchange information corresponding to the resource exchange request to the candidate exchangers (¶ 3-6, display GUI); and
determining, in response to responding operations of the candidate exchangers regarding the resource exchange information, the candidate exchanger that meets the resource exchange conditions as the exchange responder (¶ 36-39, 42-43, 49, 51).
Claims 7-8 and 14-15 are addressed by similar rationale as claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3-6, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meredith in view of US 20190007447 to Barnes.
Regarding claim 3, 10,
Meredith teaches:
wherein determining the exchange responder that meets the resource exchange conditions and responder selection criteria comprises:
determining, upon receiving candidate response information that meets the resource exchange conditions, a candidate responder corresponding to the candidate response information (¶ 36-39, 42-43, 49, 51, determining responder for exchange);
determining the candidate responder as the exchange responder if the candidate responder meets the responder selection criteria (¶ 36-39, 42-43, 49, 51); or
Meredith fails to teach but Barnes teaches
canceling the resource exchange request if the candidate responder does not meet the responder selection criteria (¶ 12-14, canceling connection/network traffic according to responder criteria).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Barnes. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Barnes would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating peer device protection (Barnes, ¶ 11-12).
Regarding claim 4, 11,
Meredith teaches:
wherein canceling the resource exchange request if the candidate responder does not meet the responder selection criteria comprises:
monitoring resource exchange result of the candidate response information in a current resource exchange round if the candidate response does not meet the responder selection criteria; and canceling the resource exchange request if the exchange result indicates that the resource exchange is unsuccessful (¶ 7, 13, 47, 72).
Regarding claim 5, 12,
Meredith fails to teach but Barnes teaches:
wherein the responder selection criteria comprise a resource exchange risk threshold (¶ 13, 19, threshold relating to data exchange); and
after determining the candidate responder corresponding to the candidate response information, the method further comprises:
obtaining a resource exchange risk assessment value of the candidate responder; and determining that the candidate responder meets the responder selection criteria if the resource exchange risk assessment value is below the resource exchange risk threshold (¶ 13, 19, risk assessment value and determination that device is below remediation related threshold). Motivation to include Barnes is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 6, 13,
Meredith fails to teach but Barnes teaches:
wherein obtaining the resource exchange risk assessment value of the candidate responder comprises: obtaining at least one of historical resource exchange behavior data, resource possession data, or historical gain data of the candidate responder; and performing a resource exchange risk assessment for the candidate responder based on the at least one of the historical resource exchange behavior data, the resource possession data, or the historical gain data, to obtain the resource exchange risk assessment value of the candidate responder (¶ 13, 19, 24, threshold based risk assessment for data transfer with responder). Motivation to include Barnes is the same as presented above.
CONCLUSION
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights