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 .
This is a Final Office Action in response to application 19/100,572 entitled "SETTLEMENT METHOD AND APPARATUS BASED ON DIGITAL CURRENCY WALLET SYSTEM, AND WALLET SYSTEM" filed on May 21, 2026, with claims 1-7, 9-16, and 33-35 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 33, 34, and 35 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 8 and 17-32 are cancelled.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 33-35 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 21, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 33-35 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 4, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 14, 2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner interprets :
umbrella-structured as meaning hierarchal payment accounts, such as parent-child or employer-employee or primary-subsidiary financial payment accounts;
umbrella-top as parent, employer, or primary financial payment account;
umbrella-bottom as child, employee, or subsidiary financial payment account
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.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the recited claims do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. The structural limitations of these claims are interpreted as computer code or software per-se and are not statutory. The claims recite several modules. Mediums not claimed as embodied in non-transitory computer-readable media are functional descriptive material per se and are considered to be software per se, which is not statutory.
As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product). Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03.
Here, Applicant has claimed a system defined merely by software or terms synonymous with software or files, lacking storage on a non-transitory medium, which does not enable any underlying functionality to occur. Examiner recommends amending the claim to clearly include non-transitory hardware in order to overcome this rejection. Additionally, any amendments must be fully supported by the specification. Thus the entire claim presents itself as software per se, which is not a statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 33-35 are directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A settlement method based on a digital currency wallet system, wherein the method comprises:
an umbrella-top entity sending an umbrella-top wallet opening request to an umbrella- structured wallet operating institution;
in response to the umbrella-top wallet opening request, the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution opening an umbrella-top wallet in the digital currency wallet system;
one or more umbrella-bottom entities submitting umbrella-bottom wallet opening application to the umbrella-top entity;
the umbrella-top entity assisting the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution to open one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet in the digital currency wallet system …wherein the umbrella-top wallet and the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets form a hierarchical dependency relationship, and are not able to exist independently;
the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution receiving a collected digital currency by using the umbrella-top wallet;
the umbrella-top entity generating allocation documents based on business elements;
and sending the allocation documents to the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution matching business information and fund information based on the allocation documents, and top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets;
…initiating a settlement request to the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
in response to the settlement request, the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution auditing the legality of an identity of the umbrella-top entity, and auditing whether the amounts of funds specified in the settlement request meet predetermined requirements;
and when the auditing is approved, the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution settling a fund to the one or more umbrella-bottom entities, wherein the settled fund comprises a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency and/or an account fund corresponding to a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for "open one or more ... wallets", "receiving a collected digital currency", "matching business information and fund information based on the allocation documents", "initiating a settlement", "auditing whether the amounts of funds specified in the settlement request meet predetermined requirements", and "settling a fund to the one or more umbrella-bottom entities" recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[through Application Program Interfaces (APIs)]:
merely applying computer networking technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
[a smart contract]:
merely applying blockchain technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification of the Published Application (US20260044847A1) reads:
[0122] “The terminal devices 901, 902 and 903 may be various electronic devices that have displays and support web browsing, including but not limited to smart phones, tablets, laptops and desktop computers, etc.”
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claims 2-7: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claims 9-16: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 (Step 2A-Prong 2) earlier. For example, the Applicant’s Specification of the Published Application (US20260044847A1) reads:
[0122] “The terminal devices 901, 902 and 903 may be various electronic devices that have displays and support web browsing, including but not limited to smart phones, tablets, laptops and desktop computers, etc.”
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 33 recites:
“A digital currency wallet system adopting an umbrella-structured wallet structure, wherein the umbrella-structured wallet structure comprises an umbrella-top wallet and umbrella-bottom wallets, and one umbrella-top wallet corresponds to one or more umbrella- bottom wallets, the digital currency wallet system comprises an umbrella-top entity, an umbrella- structured wallet operating institution, one or more umbrella-bottom entities and…
the umbrella-top entity is configured to send an umbrella-top wallet opening request to the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution is configured to, in response to the umbrella-top wallet opening request, open an umbrella-top wallet in the digital currency wallet system;
one or more umbrella-bottom entities are configured to submit umbrella-bottom wallet opening application to the umbrella-top entity;
the umbrella-top entity is configured to assist the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution to open one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet in the digital currency wallet system …wherein the umbrella-top wallet and the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets form a hierarchical dependency relationship, and are not able to exist independently;
the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution is configured to receive a collected digital currency by using the umbrella-top wallet;
the umbrella-top entity is configured to generate allocation documents based on business elements, and send the allocation documents to the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution is configured to match business information and fund information based on the allocation documents, -and send the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets by top-to-bottom fund transferring;
… is configured to initiate a settlement request to the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
in response to the settlement requests, the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution is configured to audit the legality of an identity of the umbrella-top entity, and audit whether the amount of funds specified in the settlement requests meets predetermined requirements;
and the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution is configured to, when the auditing is approved, settle a fund to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets, wherein the settled fund comprises a top- to-bottom fund transferred digital currency and/or an account fund corresponding to a top-to- bottom fund transferred digital currency.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for "open one or more ... wallets", "receive a collected digital currency", "match business information and fund information based on the allocation documents", "initiate a settlement", "audit whether the amounts of funds specified in the settlement request meet predetermined requirements", and "settle a fund to the one or more umbrella-bottom entities" recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[through Application Program Interfaces (APIs)]:
merely applying computer networking technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
[a/the smart contract]:
merely applying blockchain technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification of the Published Application (US20260044847A1), see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 33 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 34 recites:
“ … to implement following actions:
an umbrella-top entity sending an umbrella-top wallet opening request to an umbrella- structured wallet operating institution;
in response to the umbrella-top wallet opening request, the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution opening an umbrella-top wallet in the digital currency wallet system;
one or more umbrella-bottom entities submitting umbrella-bottom wallet opening application to the umbrella-top entity;
the umbrella-top entity the umbrella-top entity assisting the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution to open one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet in the digital currency wallet system … wherein the umbrella-top wallet and the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets form a hierarchical dependency relationship, and are not able to exist independently;
the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution receiving a collected digital currency by using the umbrella-top wallet;
the umbrella-top entity generating allocation documents based on business elements, and sending the allocation documents to the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution matching business information and fund information based on the allocation documents, and top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets;
… initiating settlement requests to the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
in response to the settlement requests, the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution auditing the legality of an identity of the umbrella-top entity, and auditing whether the amounts of funds specified in the settlement requests meet predetermined requirements;
and when the auditing is approved, the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution settling a fund to the one or more umbrella-bottom entities, wherein the settled fund comprises a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency and/or an account fund corresponding to a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for "open one or more ... wallets", "receiving a collected digital currency", "matching business information and fund information based on the allocation documents", "initiating a settlement", "auditing whether the amounts of funds specified in the settlement request meet predetermined requirements", and "settling a fund to the one or more umbrella-bottom entities" recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory, configured to store one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[through Application Program Interfaces (APIs)]:
merely applying computer networking technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
[a smart contract]:
merely applying blockchain technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification of the Published Application (US20260044847A1), see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 34 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 35 recites:
“ … implements following actions:
an umbrella-top entity sending an umbrella-top wallet opening request to an umbrella- structured wallet operating institution;
in response to the umbrella-top wallet opening request, the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution opening an umbrella-top wallet in the digital currency wallet system;
one or more umbrella-bottom entities submitting umbrella-bottom wallet opening application to the umbrella-top entity;
the umbrella-top entity assisting the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution to open one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet in the digital currency wallet system …. wherein the umbrella-top wallet and the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets form a hierarchical dependency relationship, and are not able to exist independently;
the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution receiving a collected digital currency by using the umbrella-top wallet;
the umbrella-top entity generating allocation documents based on business elements, and sending the allocation documents to the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution matching business information and fund information based on the allocation documents, and top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets;
… initiating a settlement request to the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
in response to the settlement request, the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution auditing the legality of an identity of the umbrella-top entity, and auditing whether the amounts of funds specified in the settlement requests meet predetermined requirements;
and when the auditing is approved, the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution settling a fund to the one or more umbrella-bottom entities, wherein the settled fund comprises a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency and/or an account fund corresponding to a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for "open one or more ... wallets", "receiving a collected digital currency", "matching business information and fund information based on the allocation documents", "initiating a settlement", "auditing whether the amounts of funds specified in the settlement request meet predetermined requirements", and "settling a fund to the one or more umbrella-bottom entities" recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[A computer-readable medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[through Application Program Interfaces (APIs)]:
merely applying computer networking technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
[a smart contract]:
merely applying blockchain technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification of the Published Application (US20260044847A1), see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 35 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
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 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.
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.
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 1-7, 9-12, 16, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumminaro ("MOBILE PERSON-TO-PERSON PAYMENT SYSTEM", U.S. Publication Number: 20070255653 A1) in view of Auerbach (“SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR MODIFYING THE SUPPLY, DEPOSITING, HOLDING, AND/OR DISTRIBUTING COLLATERAL AS A STABLE VALUE TOKEN IN THE FORM OF DIGITAL ASSETS”, U.S. Patent Number: 12093942 B1)
Regarding Claim 1,
Tumminaro teaches,
A settlement method based on a digital currency wallet system,
(Tumminaro [0159] A settlement engine handles the transactions within the closed loop system which settles on a real time or near-real time basis.
Tumminaro [0170] by offering their subscribers a digital payment solution
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet with cash where the balance changes immediately.)
wherein the method comprises: an umbrella-top entity sending an umbrella-top wallet opening request to an umbrella- structured wallet operating institution;
(Tumminaro [0029] system can include a pooled account for newly registered users, where newly registered users may conduct transactions with registered users immediately after registration.
Tumminaro [0030] where users...can access their money at a bank connected to the system... A number of the clients may not have an account in the pooled account but instead have an account at a financial institution, which has access to the system.
Tumminaro [0235] a new account can be opened
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet
Tumminaro [0224] account holders contribute to a master account)
in response to the umbrella-top wallet opening request, the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution opening an umbrella-top wallet in the digital currency wallet system-;
(Tumminaro [0235] a new account can be opened
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet)
one or more umbrella-bottom entities submitting umbrella-bottom wallet opening application to the umbrella-top entity;
(Tumminaro [0235] a new account can be opened
Tumminaro [0540] a registration process for a new account holder in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.
Tumminaro [0541] Registration can occur at any bank partner or on-line at a web page accessed over the Internet
Tumminaro [0224] account holders contribute to a master account
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet)
the umbrella-top entity assisting the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution to open one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet in the digital currency wallet system through Application Program Interfaces (APIs),
(Tumminaro [0235] a new account can be opened
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet
Tumminaro [0859] The interface between mobile devices and Electronic Wallet Platform (EWP) Service Proxy includes service components such as the Payment Service and the Registration Service and its high-level hierarchy of Exception objects. The business data transport classes that are returned from the service calls are also described.
Tumminaro [0249] Each partner system can have a different electronic interfacing scheme, and the mobile payment system will communicate using the appropriate application program interface (API))
the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution receiving a collected digital currency by using the umbrella-top wallet;
(Tumminaro [0399] Obopay sends a message to Diamond initiating a $300 P2P from Obopay CC-Master A/C to U1's debit card. User is immediately credited with funds.
Tumminaro [0124] access an account such as a debit account.
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet)
the umbrella-top entity generating allocation documents based on business elements; and sending the allocation documents to the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution; the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution matching business information and fund information based on the allocation documents,
(Tumminaro [1015] Business Objects
Tumminaro [1016] This section addresses the data objects used ...A set of data objects are defined in the EWP_Design Pilot.doc and EWPDOModel_v2.vsd design documents.
Tumminaro [1017] The following table shows the business object class name, its corresponding data table name, the attribute names, the corresponding data table column names
Tumminaro [0543] establish links between individuals and corporations for traditional and nontraditional householding, create a multifunction “Household” key to track changes over time, and establish rules-based processing
Tumminaro [0544] Once the OFAC compliance is complete ...and no adverse links identified, the account holder becomes a “no card” account, which means the financial institution can open a prefunded debit card account and order a plastic debit card sent the new account holder
Tumminaro [0310] existing members to make viral payments by offering a funds split where the payment system matches the payment amount via fixed or percentage amounts)
and top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets;
(Tumminaro [0399] Obopay sends a message to Diamond initiating a $300 P2P from Obopay CC-Master A/C to U1's debit card. User is immediately credited with funds.
Tumminaro [0124] access an account such as a debit account.
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet)
the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution settling a fund to the one or more umbrella-bottom entities, wherein the settled fund comprises a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency and/or an account fund corresponding to a top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency
(Tumminaro [0160] The settlement engine also facilitates person-to-person (P2P) transactions because of the ability to transfer funds from one enrolled account holder to another enrolled account holder.
Tumminaro [0003] relate generally to electronic currency transfer systems)
Tumminaro does not teach wherein the umbrella-top wallet and the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets form a hierarchical dependency relationship, and are not able to exist independently; a smart contract initiating a settlement request to the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution; in response to the settlement request, the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution auditing the legality of an identity of the umbrella-top entity, and auditing whether the amounts of funds specified in the settlement request meet predetermined requirements; and when the auditing is approved
Auerbach teaches,
wherein the umbrella-top wallet and the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets form a hierarchical dependency relationship,
(Auerbach [Col 318, Lines 23-24] an insured omnibus fiat account may comprise a plurality of the associated insured fiat accounts.)
(wallets) are not able to exist independently;
(Auerbach [Col 318, Lines 23-24] an insured omnibus fiat account may comprise a plurality of the associated insured fiat accounts.
Auerbach [Col 68, Lines 43-63] A hot wallet liquidity module may analyze and predict the amount of assets per wallet and/or during a time period required to meet anticipated need and may also initiate transfers of assets to or from hot wallets to maintain desired levels....receiving wallet may be destroyed after the received assets are transferred to one or more other wallets.
Auerbach [Col 77, Lines 45-50] a wallet balancing module running one or more balancing algorithms on one or more processors to distribute digital assets to wallets
Auerbach [Col 70, Lines 11-13] a digital asset exchange may require users to open designated accounts associated with the user in order to participate in the exchange.)
a smart contract initiating a settlement request to the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
(Auerbach [Col 7, Lines 22-25] hold and/or distribute collateral in the form of stable value digital assets for a security token based on a user defined smart contract, on the same underlying blockchain
Auerbach [Col 69, Lines 22-24] Transactions may be settled via the digital asset network in real-time
Auerbach [Col 40, Lines 60-63] fiat will be held in a segregated, omnibus bank account at one or more federally insured depository institution
Auerbach [Col 58, Lines 28-38] a digital asset exchange, a bank, a trust, or other trusted entity.... including the source wallet, the destination wallet,...and/or the balance in each wallet before and/or after the transaction.)
in response to the settlement request, the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution auditing the legality of an identity of the umbrella-top entity, and auditing whether the amounts of funds specified in the settlement request meet predetermined requirements;
(Auerbach [Col 68, Lines 7-8] An exchange can also include a trade settlement system.
Auerbach [Col 71, Lines 1-5] a digital asset exchange may comply with relevant laws and regulations whereby the exchange may operate in a highly regulated banking environment and permit necessary supervision by relevant legal authorities.
Auerbach [Col 92, Line 64 to Col 93, Line 11] In order to define a market for loaning of digital assets, one or more order books may be set up on ...a regulated digital asset exchange ...maintained by as a trust company, a regulated trust company, a bank, a broker dealer
Auerbach [Col 56, Lines 20-28] the amount of digital assets held in such wallet(s) may be verified and audited... Proof of control...may be implemented to verify the amount of assets held in custodial wallets
Auerbach [Col 101, Lines 46-56] the digital asset computer system calculates margin requirements based on margin considerations. The margin requirements apply to both the first user and the second user (buyer and seller)....an initial margin requirement is based on the margin considerations,...must provide sufficient collateral to cover at least a portion of the total value of the swap, which corresponds to the initial margin.)
and when the auditing is approved
(Auerbach [Col 77, Lines 1-3] A transaction ledger may track transactions. A settlement engine may process the transactions, which may include providing trade confirmations
Auerbach [Col 218, Lines 22-25] settlement engine may include pre-program instructions to transfer an amount of digital assets from a seller wallet to at least one buyer wallet upon the occurrence of user specified conditions.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the financial settlement of Tumminaro to incorporate the auditing teachings of Auerbach having “the amount of digital assets held in such wallet(s) may be verified and audited” (Auerbach [Col 56, Lines 20-23]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. auditing) to a known concept (i.e. financial settlement) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “may be implemented to verify the amount of assets held in custodial wallets, including both segregated custodial wallets and commingled custodial wallets” Auerbach [Col 56, Lines 25-28])
Regarding Claim 2,
Tumminaro and Auerbach teach the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the opening an umbrella-top wallet and one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet comprises: opening the umbrella-top wallet for storing a digital currency in response to an umbrella-top wallet opening request made by an umbrella-top entity;
(Tumminaro [0029] system can include a pooled account for newly registered users, where newly registered users may conduct transactions with registered users immediately after registration.
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet
Tumminaro [0224] account holders contribute to a master account
Tumminaro [0124] The account may also be a stored value account
Tumminaro [0541] Registration can occur at any bank partner or on-line at a web page accessed over the Internet as indicated at 5102. The registration process enables the recipient to open a prefunded (using the transferred funds) debit account. This process is similar to opening any other bank account
Tumminaro [0235] a new account can be opened
Tumminaro [0478] virtual pooled accounts may be configured to be a representation of a group of pooled accounts where the selection of those pooled accounts for inclusion in a specific virtual pooled account
Tumminaro [0256] As more users register and use of the system, the users will help spread news and bring in additional users. For example, in order for a nonmember user to receive the money, the nonmember is encouraged or required to sign up as a member.)
and opening the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets for storing a digital currency and corresponding to the one or more umbrella-bottom entities in response to one or more umbrella-bottom wallet opening requests authorized by the one or more umbrella-bottom entities and made by the umbrella-top entity.
(Tumminaro [0235] a new account can be opened
Tumminaro [0029] system can include a pooled account for newly registered users
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet
Tumminaro [0256] in order for a nonmember user to receive the money, the nonmember is encouraged or required to sign up as a member.)
Regarding Claim 3,
Tumminaro and Auerbach teach the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the settling a fund to one or more umbrella-bottom entities comprises: withdrawing the top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency in the one or more umbrella- bottom wallets to a digital currency wallet or a bank settlement account bound to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets.
(Tumminaro [0160] The settlement engine also facilitates person-to-person (P2P) transactions because of the ability to transfer funds from one enrolled account holder to another enrolled account holder.
Tumminaro [0541] enables the recipient to open a prefunded (using the transferred funds) debit account. This process is similar to opening any other bank account
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet)
Regarding Claim 4,
Tumminaro and Auerbach teach the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the settling a fund to one or more umbrella-bottom entities comprises: in response to the one or more settlement requests, converting the top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency in the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets back to a specific account of a payment institution associated with the umbrella-top entity;
(Tumminaro [0210] selecting and identifying parties to a transaction....An identifying code....that is translated to a specific account
Tumminaro [0574] there is a three-level security blanket that authenticates the user (PIN), the phone number (detected by caller ID and linked to a specific account)
Tumminaro [0478] virtual pooled accounts may be configured to be a representation of a group of pooled accounts where the selection of those pooled accounts for inclusion in a specific virtual pooled account
Tumminaro [0224] account holders contribute to a master account)
and uniformly
(Tumminaro [0312] user B is given the option of negotiating one or more terms of the transaction with user A. The negotiable terms can include the amount of the transfer, the bank in which the account will be established, a split of referral fees, and so on.)
settling an account amount in the specific account corresponding to the digital currency converted back and a pending settlement amount of an electronic payment received by the specific account to a fund account of the one or more umbrella-bottom entities.
(Tumminaro [0319] The system can also include a setting for users to dictate that they will only accept transactions from specified members, or in the converse, they will not accept payments from specified members.
Tumminaro [0321] In the event user A has sufficient funds, and user B accepts the transaction, the amount is debited from user A's account and credited to user B's account.
Tumminaro [0318] If user A's account has sufficient funds for the transaction, the system also notifies user B of the pending transaction)
Regarding Claim 5,
Tumminaro and Auerbach teach the financial settlement of Claim 4 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the converting the top-to- bottom fund transferred digital currency in the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets back to a specific account of a payment institution associated with the umbrella-top entity comprises: sending the top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency in the one or more umbrella- bottom wallets to an internal wallet of the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
(Tumminaro [0319] The system can also include a setting for users to dictate that they will only accept transactions from specified members, or in the converse, they will not accept payments from specified members.
Tumminaro [0321] In the event user A has sufficient funds, and user B accepts the transaction, the amount is debited from user A's account and credited to user B's account.
Tumminaro [0318] If user A's account has sufficient funds for the transaction, the system also notifies user B of the pending transaction
Tumminaro [0545] At a back end processing portion of a system of the invention, a pooled holding account holds transferred funds if the recipient is not already an account holder.
Tumminaro [0252] Users are typically associated with specific financial partners, such as a particular bank. In the mobile payment system, each user will have a user profile that has settings for that user. These parameters include ... linked accounts)
and converting a digital currency in the internal wallet back to an internal account of the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution, and then transferring, to the specific account, an account amount in the internal account corresponding to the digital currency converted back from the internal wallet.
(Tumminaro [0545] At a back end processing portion of a system of the invention, a pooled holding account holds transferred funds if the recipient is not already an account holder.
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet
Tumminaro [0291] The payment sent to user B is debited from A's account and it is held in suspense pending user B's enrollment.
Tumminaro [0312] user B is given the option of negotiating one or more terms of the transaction with user A. The negotiable terms can include the amount of the transfer
Tumminaro [0294] 8. After user B successfully enrolls, user B's account is automatically funded with user A's payment.)
Regarding Claim 6,
Tumminaro and Auerbach teach the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the settling a fund to one or more umbrella-bottom entities comprises: in response to the one or more settlement requests, converting the top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency in the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets back to an internal account of the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
(Tumminaro [0472] The contribution is refundable
Tumminaro [0395] the transaction can be reversed
Tumminaro [0160] The settlement engine also facilitates person-to-person (P2P) transactions because of the ability to transfer funds from one enrolled account holder to another enrolled account holder.
Tumminaro [0545] a pooled holding account holds transferred funds if the recipient is not already an account holder.)
and uniformly settling an account amount
(Tumminaro [0312] user B is given the option of negotiating one or more terms of the transaction with user A. The negotiable terms can include the amount of the transfer, the bank in which the account will be established, a split of referral fees, and so on.)
in the internal account corresponding to a digital currency converted back and a pending settlement amount of an electronic payment received by the internal account to a fund account of the one or more umbrella-bottom entities.
(Tumminaro [0319] The system can also include a setting for users to dictate that they will only accept transactions from specified members, or in the converse, they will not accept payments from specified members.
Tumminaro [0321] In the event user A has sufficient funds, and user B accepts the transaction, the amount is debited from user A's account and credited to user B's account.
Tumminaro [0318] If user A's account has sufficient funds for the transaction, the system also notifies user B of the pending transaction)
Regarding Claim 7,
Tumminaro and Auerbach teach the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the settling a fund to the one or more umbrella-bottom entities comprises: in response to the one or more settlement requests, transferring the top-to-bottom fund transferred digital currency in the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets to an internal wallet of the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution;
(Tumminaro [0545] At a back end processing portion of a system of the invention, a pooled holding account holds transferred funds if the recipient is not already an account holder.
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet)
and uniformly settling an amount of a digital currency received by the internal wallet,
(Tumminaro [0312] user B is given the option of negotiating one or more terms of the transaction with user A. The negotiable terms can include the amount of the transfer, the bank in which the account will be established, a split of referral fees, and so on.)
and a pending settlement amount of an electronic payment correspondingly converted out from the internal wallet to a digital currency wallet bound to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets.
(Tumminaro [0318] If user A's account has sufficient funds for the transaction, the system also notifies user B of the pending transaction
Tumminaro [0478] virtual pooled accounts may be configured to be a representation of a group of pooled accounts where the selection of those pooled accounts for inclusion in a specific virtual pooled account is in accordance with any convenient parameter or group of parameters
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet)
Regarding Claim 9,
Tumminaro and Auerbach teach the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
in response to a cancellation request sent by an umbrella-top entity corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet to the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution, canceling the umbrella-top wallet or the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets requested to be canceled.
(Tumminaro [0344] user A is provided with the option of being able to cancel the payment before user B accepts it.
Tumminaro [0366] A is permitted to cancel payment and B will be appropriately notified)
Regarding Claim 10,
Tumminaro and Auerbach teach the financial settlement of Claim 9 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein when the umbrella-top wallet is requested to be canceled, and before canceling the umbrella-top wallet, determining that all the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet have been canceled and that there is no digital currency balance in the umbrella-top wallet as well as no corresponding pending transactions.
(Tumminaro [0344] user A is provided with the option of being able to cancel the payment before user B accepts it.
Tumminaro [0366] A is permitted to cancel payment and B will be appropriately notified
Tumminaro [0318] In the event that user A's account lacks sufficient funds for the financial transaction, the system sends an electronic notification
Tumminaro [0701] If any problems do arise with the payment (i.e., insufficient funds) both the account holder and the target payee will be notified.
Tumminaro [0490] If a preauthorized account is depleted and the account holder has not timely replenished the account, the telephone number may be placed on a “red list” and prohibited from future use of the service.)
Regarding Claim 11,
Tumminaro and Auerbach teach the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets comprises: top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to a corresponding umbrella-bottom wallet based on collection information and business elements, wherein the collection information comprises a collection amount and an identifier of an umbrella-bottom wallet associated with the collection amount; and the business elements are pre-agreed between an umbrella-top entity corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet and the umbrella-bottom entities, comprising at least one of the following: an allocation cycle, a commission ratio, return rules, freight and insurance collection rules, and advance fund repayment rules.
(Tumminaro [0312] Negotiation...User A requests to send the funds using a suitable identifier for user B. User B is notified of the pending payment ... user B is given the option of negotiating one or more terms of the transaction with user A. The negotiable terms can include the amount of the transfer, the bank in which the account will be established, a split of referral fees, and so on.
Tumminaro [0316] user A sends funds to user B via a unique identifier or ID. The unique identifier may be...include phone numbers...e-mail address, social security number, account number, license plate number, instant messenger username, and others.)
Regarding Claim 12,
Tumminaro and Auerbach teach the financial settlement of Claim 11 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
wherein the top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets comprises: when the collected digital currency is top-to-bottom fund transferred according to a pre- agreed commission ratio, top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency into the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet.
(Tumminaro [0312] Negotiation...User A requests to send the funds using a suitable identifier for user B. User B is notified of the pending payment ... user B is given the option of negotiating one or more terms of the transaction with user A. The negotiable terms can include the amount of the transfer, the bank in which the account will be established, a split of referral fees, and so on.
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet
Tumminaro [0029] An embodiment of the system can include a pooled account for newly registered users, where newly registered users may conduct transactions with registered users immediately after registration.)
Regarding Claim 16,
Tumminaro and Auerbach teach the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
maintaining relevant information of the corresponding umbrella-top wallet or umbrella-bottom wallet in response to a maintenance request for the umbrella-top wallet or the umbrella-bottom wallet, the relevant information comprising information of a wallet owner.
(Tumminaro [0950] requestDate•String value that is the audit time stamp for the balance request
Tumminaro [1014] AuditEvent event
Tumminaro [1017 - Table] AuditEvent ...accountId....memberId )
Claim 33 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 34 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 35 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumminaro and Auerbach in view of Li (“A KIND OF RESOURCE BACKING METHOD AND DEVICE”, Chinese Publication Number: CN 109003069 A).
Regarding Claim 13,
Tumminaro and Auerbach teach the financial settlement of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Tumminaro teaches,
the umbrella-top wallet
(Tumminaro [0224] account holders contribute to a master account
Tumminaro [0175] accounts function like a wallet)
Tumminaro does not teach in response to a refund request, returning refunded funds … along an original route.
(Li [page 2] receiving the client end after the refund request, determining the original payment according to the refund request path, the original payment path as target refund path for resource fallback. For example, when the user consumption payment by bank card payment, after the user applies for refund, the consumption money back to the bank, but for example, when the user consumption payment using the payment balance payment after the user applies for refund, the consumption money is returned to the AliPay balance.
Li [page 5] the refund request, first path of funds corresponding to the original payment account for refund operation, and determining the refund result based on the original payment route the refund operation, wherein, the refund may result is a chargeback is successful)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the financial settlement of Tumminaro to incorporate the transaction route teachings of Li having an “original payment path.” (Li [page 2]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. transaction route) to a known concept (i.e. financial settlement) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “original payment path as target refund path” (Li [page 2])
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumminaro, Auerbach, James, and Li and further view of Tedesco (“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATIC ASSET TRANSFER USING SMART CONTRACTS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20220284419 A1).
Regarding Claim 14,
Tumminaro, Auerbach, James, and Li teach the financial settlement of Claim 13 as described earlier.
Tumminaro does not teach receiving advance funds supplemented to the umbrella-top wallet by the umbrella-top entity corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet when a digital currency balance of the umbrella- top wallet is less than the refunded funds.
Tedesco teaches,
receiving advance funds supplemented to the umbrella-top wallet by the umbrella-top entity corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet when a digital currency balance of the umbrella- top wallet is less than the refunded funds.
(Tedesco [0050] In other example aspects, a user could configure a profile so that other wallets could be linked to the user wallet and the escrow wallet, wherein the third-party wallets may pay for the user's service (e.g., parents paying for child's service use, school paying for student's service use, etc.). In such a scenario, the transfer of assets among wallets may involve a third-party wallet that may transfer funds to an escrow wallet on behalf of the user.
Tedesco [0058] When the use reaches a certain threshold, for example, a smart contract rule may be triggered at 526, whereby assets are automatically transferred from an escrow wallet to the service provider wallet .... if the escrow wallet has insufficient funds to pay )
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the financial settlement of Tumminaro to incorporate the escrow teachings of Tedesco where “funds may be placed into an escrow wallet.” (Tedesco [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. escrow) to a known concept (i.e. financial settlement) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “The system may receive a trigger event, which may cause a transfer of assets from the escrow wallet” Tedesco [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 15,
Tumminaro, Auerbach, James, and Li teach the financial settlement of Claim 14 as described earlier.
Tumminaro does not teach wherein before the top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets, the method further comprises: offsetting the advance funds when the umbrella-top entity corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet replenishes the umbrella-top wallet with the advance funds.
Tedesco teaches,
wherein before the top-to-bottom fund transferring the collected digital currency to the one or more umbrella-bottom wallets, the method further comprises: offsetting the advance funds when the umbrella-top entity corresponding to the umbrella-top wallet replenishes the umbrella-top wallet with the advance funds.
(Tedesco [0050] In other example aspects, a user could configure a profile so that other wallets could be linked to the user wallet and the escrow wallet, wherein the third-party wallets may pay for the user's service (e.g., parents paying for child's service use, school paying for student's service use, etc.). In such a scenario, the transfer of assets among wallets may involve a third-party wallet that may transfer funds to an escrow wallet on behalf of the user.
Tedesco [0058] When the use reaches a certain threshold, for example, a smart contract rule may be triggered at 526, whereby assets are automatically transferred from an escrow wallet to the service provider wallet .... if the escrow wallet has insufficient funds to pay )
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the financial settlement of Tumminaro to incorporate the escrow teachings of Tedesco where “funds may be placed into an escrow wallet.” (Tedesco [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. escrow) to a known concept (i.e. financial settlement) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “The system may receive a trigger event, which may cause a transfer of assets from the escrow wallet” Tedesco [Abstract])
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on May 21, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“The amended Claims do not merely refer to the software. The term "A computer-readable medium" recited in Claim 35 has been replaced with "A non-transitory computer-readable medium".
Examiner responds:
The proposed invention solves a business/financial concern relating to digital currency wallet transfers. It does not constitute a technological innovation. The focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than “merely applying” off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, synthesizing, sending, and presenting the desired information. For example, the Applicant’s Specification of the Published Application (US20260044847A1) reads:
[0122] “The terminal devices 901, 902 and 903 may be various electronic devices that have displays and support web browsing, including but not limited to smart phones, tablets, laptops and desktop computers, etc.”
See MPEP 2106.05(d) well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The Applicant states:
“That is to say, the steps "opening an umbrella-top wallet", "receiving a collected digital currency" and "settling a fund to the one or more umbrella-bottom entities" are executed by the umbrella-structured wallet operating institution which is the physical entity ".
Examiner responds:
The steps of "opening an umbrella-top wallet", "receiving a collected digital currency" and "settling a fund to the one or more umbrella-bottom entities" recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a step, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the invention recites an abstract idea.
The Applicant states:
“the present application solves a technical problem within a computer system, … in scenarios involving multiple hierarchical entities using digital currency, how to efficiently and atomically accomplish fund aggregation, allocation, and conditional settlement within the wallet system. … by employing an umbrella- structured wallet and an automated … settlement mechanism to perform these operations entirely within the wallet system."
Examiner responds:
The steps of “efficiently and atomically accomplish fund aggregation, allocation, and conditional settlement within the wallet system. … by employing an umbrella- structured wallet and an automated … settlement mechanism to perform these operations entirely within the wallet system" also recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a step, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the invention recites an abstract idea.
The Applicant states:
“First, the amended Claim 1 recites the umbrella-structured wallet system, which constitutes a specific technical limitation on the architecture of the digital currency wallet system. In traditional wallet systems, each wallet exists independently, and deleting or freezing one wallet does not affect others… embedding and automated execution of allocation and settlement rules."
Examiner responds:
A “digital currency wallet system” and “embedding and automated execution of allocation and settlement rules” are not an additional elements (technological component) but rather an abstract ideas.
One abstract idea cannot integrate another abstract idea into a practical application. The invention is merely the abstract idea performed on a processor. An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant's amendments required the application of new/additional prior art.
New prior art includes:
Auerbach (“SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR MODIFYING THE SUPPLY, DEPOSITING, HOLDING, AND/OR DISTRIBUTING COLLATERAL AS A STABLE VALUE TOKEN IN THE FORM OF DIGITAL ASSETS”, U.S. Patent Number: 12093942 B1).
Applicant’s amendments alter the scope of the original claimed invention and the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 no longer applies. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of newly amended claims, a new grounds of rejection is made under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection made under 35 USC § 103 are rendered moot by the introduction of additional prior art.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rajaraman (“Systems And Methods For Managing Receipts For Payment Account Transactions”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20180247281 A1) proposes managing receipts associated with payment account transactions are disclosed. One exemplary method includes intercepting, by a computing device, an authorization message associated with a transaction involving a payment account and a merchant. The method also includes accessing, by the computing device, a profile for the payment account where the profile includes a vault location in a receipt vault data structure specific to the payment account, and appending, by the computing device, the vault location to the authorization message, whereby the merchant is permitted to deposit a receipt for the transaction at the vault location in the receipt vault data structure..
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights