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
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to application number 18992735 filed on January 09, 2025. Claims 1-51 were pending in the Application. Claims 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, 21, 24-30, 33-38, and 40-49 have been canceled. Claims 52-53 have been added. Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, 13, 17-20, 22-23, 31-32, 39, and 50-53 are currently pending, and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202210809405.4 filed on 07/11/2022.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is longer than 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: “sending usage credential … to a merchant end; wherein …” should read “sending usage credential … to a merchant end, wherein …”
Claim 52 is objected to because of the following informalities: “A digital currency-based … and a merchant end; wherein …” should read “A digital currency-based … and a merchant end, wherein …”
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The system according to claim 52, …: a user end back platform; wherein …” should read “The system according to claim 52, …: a user end back platform, wherein …”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1901” has been used to designate both merchant end (FIG. 19, item 1901) and merchant terminal (specification, para 319, merchant terminal 1901). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Acknowledgement of Applicant Response
Applicant’s response to the questions posed to the Applicant in the Examiner-Initiated Interview dated June 08, 2026, is acknowledged, and provided as an attachment to the current application.
Claim Interpretation
In regards to the Applicant’s response to the Examiner-Initiated Interview dated June 08, 2026, in particular to the terms “first digital currency”, “second digital currency”, “third digital currency”, “fourth digital currency”, “fifth digital currency”, “sixth digital currency”, and “eleventh digital currency”, Examiner is interpreting these terms as “digital currency amounts” and not different types of digital currencies with serial numbers to further prosecution.
Claim Interpretation - Optional Language
Claim 22, recites the limitations: “in a case where the prepayment card smart contract determines that a commodity return condition is met, generating a sixth digital currency corresponding to the commodity return amount …” and “in a case where the prepayment card smart contract determines that a commodity return condition is met, generating a sixth digital currency according to a digital currency balance …”, which do not necessarily occur in the case “the prepayment card smart contract determines that a commodity return condition is not met.” (MPEP § 2103 I C and MPEP § 2111.04 II).
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 1-3, 6-7, 10, 13, 17-20, 22-23, 31-32, 39, and 50-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, 13, 17-20, 22-23, 31-32, and 39 are directed to a “method”; claims 50 and 52-53 are directed to a “device”; and claim 51 is directed to an “non-transitory computer-readable medium”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites “currency-based prepayment fund management”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “A digital currency-based prepayment fund management method, applied to a merchant operating agency, wherein the merchant operating agency signs a prepayment fund service agreement with a target merchant and deploys one or more prepayment card smart contracts, and the method comprises: receiving a generation request for a prepayment card corresponding to a prepayment fund, the generation request indicating the target merchant corresponding to the prepayment card to be generated, user information of the prepayment card, a prepayment amount, and a prepayment card type; generating a payment order according to the prepayment amount and receiving a first digital currency for prepayment; generating a target prepayment card and a smart contract sub-wallet according to the target merchant, the user information of the prepayment card and the first digital currency, wherein the smart contract sub-wallet is set in the merchant operating agency and is bound to a prepayment card smart contract according to the prepayment card type, and an identifier of the smart contract sub-wallet is associated with a prepayment card identifier of the target prepayment card; and storing a second digital currency corresponding to the target prepayment card in the smart contract sub-wallet”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “one or more prepayment card smart contracts”, “a first digital currency”, “a smart contract sub-wallet according to the target merchant”, “a prepayment card smart contract”, and “a second digital currency”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “currency-based prepayment fund management”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “currency-based prepayment fund management” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more prepayment card smart contracts” and “a first digital currency”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 50 also recites the abstract idea of “currency-based prepayment fund management”, as well the additional elements of “An electronic device”, “digital currencies”, “one or more processors”, “a storage apparatus”, “wherein the one or more programs, upon being executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: …”, “a first digital currency”, “a smart contract sub-wallet”, “a prepayment card smart contract”, and “a second digital currency”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “currency-based prepayment fund management”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “currency-based prepayment fund management” using computer technology (e.g., “an electronic device” and “a storage apparatus”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 50 is non-statutory.
Claim 51 also recites the abstract idea of “currency-based prepayment fund management”, as well the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored a computer program thereon, wherein the program, upon being executed by a processor, implements the method comprising: …”, “a first digital currency”, “a smart contract sub-wallet”, “a prepayment card smart contract”, and “a second digital currency”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “currency-based prepayment fund management”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “currency-based prepayment fund management” using computer technology (e.g., “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “a second digital currency”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 51 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-7, 10, 13, 17-20, 22-23, 31-32, 39, and 52-53 further describe the abstract idea of “currency-based prepayment fund management”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1 and 50-51.
Dependent claims 2, 7, 19, 31-32, and 52 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “currency-based prepayment fund management”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Dependent claim 3 recites a new additional element of “a third digital currency”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claims 6 and 53 recite new additional elements of “a user end back platform” and “a user end”, which do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 10 recites a new additional element of “a fourth digital currency”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claims 13 and 20 recite a new additional element of “a financial management income end”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 17 recites a new additional element of “a fifth digital currency”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 18 recites a new additional element of “a new second digital currency”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 22 recites a new additional element of “a sixth digital currency”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 23 recites a new additional element of “a merchant end”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 39 recites a new additional element of “an eleventh digital currency”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Hence, claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, 13, 17-20, 22-23, 31-32, 39, and 50-53 are not patent eligible.
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 50-53 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.
Antecedent Basis
Claim 50 recites “generate a target prepayment card … the merchant operating agency …” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the merchant operating agency” in claim 50. Additionally, similar language is recited in claim 51. Dependent claims 52-53, which depend on claim 50, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2173.05 (e)).
Unclear Scope
Claim 52 recites “the merchant end is configured to send …” It is not clear whether the merchant end is a terminal 1901 (specification, para 399) or the merchant end is in the form of an APP or applet (specification, para 204). For purposes of examination, the claim language “the merchant end” is being interpreted as “a terminal”. MPEP § 2173.02 I recites “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” Therefore, the scope of claim 52 is unclear. Dependent claim 53, which depends from claim 52, is also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2173.02 I and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the closest prior art of record is Brennan US 20190213565 A1, Dembo US 20170032458 A1, Maiocco US 11810144 B2, Wilkes US 8751376 B1, Peng CN 115454875 A, and Chen CN 110163595 A. The references individually and in combination fail to teach, disclose or render obvious the following limitations of independent claims 1 and 50-51 including:
“receiving a generation request for a prepayment card corresponding to a prepayment fund, the generation request indicating the target merchant corresponding to the prepayment card to be generated, user information of the prepayment card, a prepayment amount, and a prepayment card type”
“generating a target prepayment card and a smart contract sub-wallet according to the target merchant, the user information of the prepayment card and the first digital currency, wherein the smart contract sub-wallet is set in the merchant operating agency and is bound to a prepayment card smart contract according to the prepayment card type, and an identifier of the smart contract sub-wallet is associated with a prepayment card identifier of the target prepayment card”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tobinai, et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20160148186 A1) – Information Processing System, Control Method Of Information Processing System, And Information Processing Program
Tobinai discloses an information processing system according to one embodiment including a determination unit and a changing unit. The determination unit sets a limit amount and a security deposit amount so that the sum of the two amounts does not exceed an amount of advance payment made by a user having applied for a prepaid payment means available at a member shop of a postpaid payment means. The changing unit refers to a pool storage unit that stores a pooled amount to be used for payment for an amount billed for sales from the member shop, and adds the security deposit amount set by the determination unit to the pooled amount. The amount billed exceeds a balance of the prepaid payment means. The pooled amount includes a security deposit of another user different from the user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, 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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/STEVEN CHISM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights