DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/12/2026 has been entered.
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Using the limitations in claim 1 to illustrate, the claim recite(s) the limitations of: maintaining an exchange sub-wallet pre-funded by a cryptocurrency exchange wallet; wherein the exchange sub-wallet is associated with a public-private key pair; receiving a transaction request for a cryptocurrency transaction for a transaction between a user and a resource provider, …; determining that an available balance of the exchange sub-wallet is greater than or equal to the transaction amount; communicating with the cryptocurrency exchange associated with the cryptocurrency exchange wallet to determine that a balance of the funding source of the cryptocurrency exchange wallet is greater than or equal to the transaction amount; providing transaction details including the funding source, the transaction amount, and the balance of the funding source in the cryptocurrency exchange wallet; receiving, confirmation of the cryptocurrency transaction from the user device; transmitting an address associated with a cryptocurrency wallet of the resource provider and instruction to the cryptocurrency exchange to place a hold on the funding source for the transaction amount; providing an authorization message to the resource provider indicating authorization of the cryptocurrency transaction based on the determination that the available balance of the exchange sub-wallet is greater than or equal to the transaction amount…; receiving an acceptance message; cryptographically signing, using the public-private key pair associated with the exchange sub-wallet, a sub-transaction to transfer funds in the transaction amount; and providing, the acceptance message and the cryptographically signed sub-transaction, wherein a transfer of cryptocurrency funds in the transaction amount from the funding source to an account of the resource provider thereafter occurs during an on-chain settlement of the transaction by recording the cryptographically signed sub-transaction on the blockchain.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components.
The claimed invention allows for processing cryptocurrency transactions which is a certain method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions and fundamental economic practices). The mere nominal recitation of a server computer, a cryptocurrency exchange computer, a user device, a resource provider computer, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under Eligibility Step 2A, prong one, (MPEP §2106.04(a)), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, prong two, (MPEP §2106.04(d)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements: receiving, by the server computer, a transaction request…; receiving, by the server computer, confirmation of the cryptocurrency transaction from the user device; receiving, by the server computer from the resource provider computer, an acceptance message. The receiving steps/functions are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving data by a computer from another computer or device). Receiving data by a computer from another device or computer over a network are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity –see MPEP 2106.05(g).
The server computer, a user device, a resource provider computer, cryptocurrency exchange computer are also recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the maintaining of an exchange sub-wallet, receiving transaction request for cryptocurrency transaction, determining that an available balance of exchange sub-wallet is greater than or equal to the transaction amount, communicating with a cryptocurrency exchange computer…to determine that a balance of funding source of crypto exchange wallet is greater/equal to transaction amount; providing transaction details, transmitting an instruction, providing an authorization message, cryptographically signing a sub-transaction, and providing an acceptance message steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (a server computer, a user device, a resource provider computer, cryptocurrency exchange computer). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claim 8 and hence claim 8 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 8 recites server computer comprising: a processor; and a computer readable medium, the computer readable medium comprising code, executable by the processor, for implementing a method that amounts to generic computer implementation.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Furthermore, under Step 2B, the additional elements found to be insignificant extra-solution activities under step 2A prong two, are re-evaluated to determine if the elements are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. Here, the Specification does not provide any indication that the server computer, user device and resource provider computer are anything other than generic computer components and the Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs, and buySafe court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05[d][ii] indicate that the mere receiving and transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving limitations are well understood, routine, and conventional activities is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicants argue that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under step 2A, prong 2 because the present invention addresses a specific technological problem inherent to decentralized blockchain networks: latency, and that the specification explicitly notes that confirming a transaction within a cryptocurrency network may take a substantial time to complete, making it impractical to use a cryptocurrency network for transactions requiring short confirmation periods, such as e-commerce. Applicants further suggest that to solve this technical problem, amended Claim 1 recites a specific, unconventional network architecture and cryptographic methodology.
The argument is not persuasive because the argued increase in efficiencies comes from a general-purpose computer, i.e., a server computer. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”).
In other words, providing for a digital signature using public-private key pairs amounts to using the generic computer server in its ordinary capacity.
Referring to page 11 of the remarks, the Examiner does not find persuasive the applicants’ argument that the solution to the problem of latency by maintaining an intermediary exchange sub-wallet that is assigned its own public-private key pair. A claim does not “cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit.” In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
On pages 11-12 of the Remarks, Applicants argue that even if the claims were considered directed to an abstract idea, they are patent-eligible under Step 2B because they recite additional elements that, considered as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicants further argue that the ordered combination of elements in amended Claim 1 is neither well-understood, routine, nor conventional because the claimed invention introduces a specialized intermediary server that: maintains a pre-funded exchange sub-wallet equipped with its own distinct public-private key pair; uses real-time balance determinations of this sub-wallet to trigger an immediate, off-chain authorization message, and defers the slow, computationally intensive on-chain settlement by taking responsibility for cryptographically signing the transaction with the sub-wallet's key pair. Applicants suggest that this specific, multi-tiered architecture-utilizing a discrete sub-wallet with its own cryptographic keys to decouple authorization from on-chain settlement is a novel arrangement of computer components to achieve reduced latency.
The argument is not persuasive. The claimed invention is directed to “systems and methods for enabling a user to complete a cryptocurrency transaction with a resource provider. For example, disclosed embodiments provide a payment network configured to enable users to link and aggregate their cryptocurrency wallets and to use cryptocurrency funds in those wallets to pay for goods and services.”-see [0019]. The claimed invention is directed to an improvement in a business process using existing computer technology and cryptography. The focus of the claims is not on an improvement to the identified additional elements as tools, but on the abstract ideas that use the additional elements as tools. The use of generic computer components to carry out the abstract idea does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea.
The additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0005354 (Rush et al.)-cited for its reference to blockchain based wallets including sub-wallets and public and private keys associated with the wallets.
WO 2022/174122 A1 (Chang)-cited for its reference to a wallet may contain many sub-wallets each handling different crypto applications, use cases, or crypto coins, and public key cryptography commonly relies on private-public key pairs for encryption and decryption of digital data according to various cryptographic algorithms..
US 2018/0323972 (Reed)-cited for its reference to sub-wallets may be created using crypto currency for objects of interest analyzed from computer vision and/or shown in advertisements. In these embodiments, sub-wallets may accept funds until a goal amount is reached to allow for purchase and automatic ordering of a product.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303)297-4411. 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights