DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Priority
This application 18/925,424, filed 10/24/2024 claims priority to:
DIV of 18/300,447, filed 04/14/2023 (effective filing date)
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-18 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 1-6 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claims 7-12 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture). Claims 13-18 are directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and 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 1, 7 and 13 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe wallet address asset transfer between entities, 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, and describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, at an asset management application executing as a cloud service managed by a provider, a request from a second entity to transfer a digital asset to a first entity;
sending a request for an address and public key to an asset custody application executing on a device that is managed by the first entity;
receiving, from the asset custody application, a public key and a wallet address; and
sending the wallet address to the second entity.
Claim 7:
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at an asset management application executing as a cloud service managed by a provider, a request from a second entity to transfer a digital asset to a first entity;
sending a request for an address and public key to an asset custody application executing on a device that is managed by the first entity;
receiving, from the asset custody application, a public key and a wallet address; and
sending the wallet address to the second entity.
Claim 13:
A system comprising
one or more computers and
one or more non-transitory, computer readable medium on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving, at an asset management application executing as a cloud service managed by a provider, a request from a second entity to transfer a digital asset to a first entity;
sending a request for an address and public key to an asset custody application executing on a device that is managed by the first entity;
receiving, from the asset custody application, a public key and a wallet address; and
sending the wallet address to the second entity.
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)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. 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
Claim 2 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes wallet address asset transfer between entities and key maintenance, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the asset custody application maintains a private key associated with the wallet address on the device controlled by the first entity.
Claim 3 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes wallet address asset transfer between entities, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the wallet address is used by a second entity to transfer a digital asset from the second entity to the first entity.
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes wallet address asset transfer between entities and ledger accounting, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
monitoring a distributed ledger to confirm a transaction of a digital asset into a wallet associated with the wallet address has occurred.
Claim 5 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes wallet address asset transfer between entities, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the provider is different from the first entity.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes wallet address asset transfer between entities, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the request to transfer the digital asset to the first entity comprises a digital asset type and identifies a distributed ledger on which a transaction transferring the digital asset to the first entity is to occur.
Claim 8 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes wallet address asset transfer between entities and key maintenance, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the asset custody application maintains a private key associated with the wallet address on the device controlled by the first entity.
Claim 9 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes wallet address asset transfer between entities, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the wallet address is used by a second entity to transfer a digital asset from the second entity to the first entity.
Claim 10 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes wallet address asset transfer between entities and ledger accounting, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the operations comprising
monitoring a distributed ledger to confirm a transaction of a digital asset into a wallet associated with the wallet address has occurred.
Claim 11 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes wallet address asset transfer between entities, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the provider is different from the first entity.
Claim 12 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes wallet address asset transfer between entities, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the request to transfer the digital asset to the first entity comprises a digital asset type and identifies a distributed ledger on which a transaction transferring the digital asset to the first entity is to occur.
Claim 14 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes wallet address asset transfer between entities and key maintenance, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the asset custody application maintains a private key associated with the wallet address on the device controlled by the first entity.
Claim 15 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes wallet address asset transfer between entities, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the wallet address is used by a second entity to transfer a digital asset from the second entity to the first entity.
Claim 16 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes wallet address asset transfer between entities and ledger accounting, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the operations comprising
monitoring a distributed ledger to confirm a transaction of a digital asset into a wallet associated with the wallet address has occurred.
Claim 17 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes wallet address asset transfer between entities, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the provider is different from the first entity.
Claim 18 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes wallet address asset transfer between entities, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0028-0046, 0049-0050, 0054). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the request to transfer the digital asset to the first entity comprises a digital asset type and identifies a distributed ledger on which a transaction transferring the digital asset to the first entity is to occur.
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 13-18 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 Scope
Claim 13 is directed to a product (e.g., "A system comprising ...”). For products, the claim limitations will define discrete physical structures or materials (See MPEP 2103(I)(C)). Here, claim 13 recites that the "system" comprises structural recitations of the "one or more computers" and “one or more non-transitory, computer readable medium on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations, the operations comprising”. However, claim 13 also after the “comprising” language, recites other structural recitations and associated functions (e.g., “receiving, at an asset management application executing as a cloud service managed by a provider, a request from a second entity to transfer a digital asset to a first entity”). Therefore, it is unclear whether or not claim 13 is also directed to structural recitations of the “asset management application executing as a cloud service managed by a provider”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and MPEP 2173.02 (III)(B) which states “Examiners should bear in mind that "[a]n essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.”
Claims 14-18 are also rejected per dependency upon a rejected claim.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0103385 A1 (“Wilson”) in view of US 10,965,469 B1 (“Maeng”).
Claims 1, 7 and 13:
Wilson discloses:
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations comprising [one or more computers and one or more non-transitory, computer readable medium on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations, the operations comprising] (0119-0121)
receiving, at an asset management application executing as a cloud service managed by a provider, a request from a second entity to transfer a digital asset to a first entity; (0080, 0092, 0103, 0109)
receiving, from the asset custody application, a public key and a wallet address; and (0037, 0039, 0068, 0093, 0094)
sending the wallet address to the second entity. (0105, 0111, 0116, 0117)
Wilson does not disclose:
sending a request for an address and public key to an asset custody application executing on a device that is managed by the first entity;
Maeing, an analogous art of encrypted transactions, discloses:
sending a request for an address and public key to an asset custody application executing on a device that is managed by the first entity; (4:15-23, 4:47-52, 7:3-10, 7:63-67/8:1-11, 8:28-42)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilson to include sending a request for an address and public key to an asset custody application executing on a device that is managed by the first entity, as disclosed in Maeing. One or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve security (Maeing 2:30-67/3:1-52).
Claims 2, 8 and 14:
The combination of Wilson in view of Maeing discloses all limitations of claims 1, 7 and 13. Wilson further discloses:
wherein the asset custody application maintains a private key associated with the wallet address on the device controlled by the first entity. (0035, 0063, 0065, 0068, 0076, 0077, 0094, 0095)
Claims 3, 9 and 15:
The combination of Wilson in view of Maeing discloses all limitations of claims 1, 7 and 13. Wilson further discloses:
wherein the wallet address is used by a second entity to transfer a digital asset from the second entity to the first entity. (0037, 0043, 0068, 0094, 0105, 0111)
Claims 4, 10 and 16:
The combination of Wilson in view of Maeing discloses all limitations of claims 3, 9 and 15. Wilson further discloses:
monitoring a distributed ledger to confirm a transaction of a digital asset into a wallet associated with the wallet address has occurred. (0044, 0056, 0062, 0092, 0098, 0100, 0108, 0111)
Claims 5, 11 and 17:
The combination of Wilson in view of Maeing discloses all limitations of claims 1, 7 and 13. Wilson further discloses:
wherein the provider is different from the first entity. (0057, 0063, 0064, 0065, 0068, 0069, 0071, 0072)
Claims 6, 12 and 18:
The combination of Wilson in view of Maeing discloses all limitations of claims 1, 7 and 13. Wilson further discloses:
wherein the request to transfer the digital asset to the first entity comprises a digital asset type and identifies a distributed ledger on which a transaction transferring the digital asset to the first entity is to occur. (0058, 0062, 0080, 0091, 0103, 0109)
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0034889 A1 to Brock et al. discloses: In one embodiment, a method includes receiving a request for payment associated with a transaction between a first user and a second user, where the request specifies a payment amount in a fiat currency and identifying an indication that the first user intends to satisfy the request for payment using a non-fiat instrument. The method also includes initiating a first transfer of a value corresponding to the payment amount in the non-fiat instrument from a first balance of the first user to one or more service balances of a payment service and initiating a second transfer of a value corresponding to the payment amount in the fiat currency from the one or more service balances of the payment service to a second balance of the second user.
US 2016/0292672 A1 to Fay et al. discloses: A computer system is provided that communicates with a distributed blockchain computing system that includes multiple computing nodes. The exchange stores an order book and a plurality of digital wallets associated with different clients. The computer system receives new data transaction requests that are added to the order book. A match is identified between data transaction requests and hashes associated with the digital wallets associated with the respective data transaction requests are generated. The counterparties receive the hashes of the other party along with information on the match and each party causes blockchain transactions to be added to the blockchain of the blockchain computing system. The computing system then monitors the blockchain to determine if both sides of the match has been added to the blockchain.
US 2018/0025442 A1 to Isaacson et al. discloses: Disclosed is an approach for processing cryptocurrency payments via a payment request application programming interface. A method includes receiving, from a site, at a browser and via the payment request application programming interface, a request associated with a potential purchase, wherein the request includes an identification of a cryptocurrency payment method accepted by the site and transmitting, to the site, from the browser and via the API, data indicating that a user of the browser can pay for the potential purchase via the cryptocurrency payment method accepted by the site. The method includes retrieving via the API cryptocurrency payment information for the potential purchase and populating a cryptocurrency wallet with the cryptocurrency payment information for automatic payment.
US 2021/0049591 A1 to Lamesh discloses: A digital wallet device for storing and securing cryptocurrency, the digital wallet device is electronically disconnected from other digital devices and comprising: a cryptocurrency integrated circuit (IC) that is isolated from any computer interface; a non-transitory computer readable storage medium mounted on the cryptocurrency IC and storing a private key of a cryptocurrency and a public key of the cryptocurrency; a man-machine interface (MMI) for receiving an input from a user; at least one processor mounted on the cryptocurrency IC for executing code to create a cryptocurrency action based on the input and to sign using the private key; and a unidirectional communication hardware for sending said transaction to a communication device for broadcasting said transaction via a network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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 at 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.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights