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 .
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.
2. 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; receiving a transaction request for a cryptocurrency transaction for a transaction between a user and a resource provider, the transaction request comprising an indication of the cryptocurrency exchange wallet and a transaction amount, wherein the cryptocurrency exchange wallet comprises a funding source; determining, 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; and providing, the acceptance message, 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.
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, 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
3. Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11 of the Remarks, regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue that under Step 2A, prong two, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere 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).
Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a server computer comprising a generic processor, and a computer readable medium, the computer readable medium comprising code, executable by the processor for implementing the method, a cryptocurrency exchange computer, a user device, a resource provider computer. The server computer, cryptocurrency exchange computer, a user device, and resource provider computer are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
On page 12 of the Remarks, Applicants contend that the claims solve a technical problem with a technical solution because the claimed invention is directed to a specific, unconventional system architecture that enables immediate, off-chain transaction authorization while deferring the slow, on-chain settlement. Applicants further argue that maintaining of an exchange sub-wallet, determining an available balance of the exchange sub-wallet and providing an authorization message links the immediate authorization to the verification of the pre-funded sub-wallet resulting in a technical improvement. The argument is not convincing because 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. Here, the claims recite generic computer components functioning in their ordinary capacity to implement the claimed steps and functions.
Applicants argue that the claimed invention recites a specific logic that decouples the merchant’s authorization from the slow, on-chain process, thereby improving the speed and efficiency of the computer system itself. The argument is not persuasive. Limitations which describe only procedure or structure common to every means of accomplishing a given result, cannot provide an inventive concept. In other words, limitations that simply “comprise the abstract concept” are not inventive. See Ultramercial Inc v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For example, a claim cannot become eligible by reciting that physical automation is accomplished by a “machine” or that logical automation is accomplished by a “computer,” see OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 778 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), because physical automation requires a machine and logical automation requires a computer. Because such elements cannot restrict a claim to a particular way of automating, recitation of a machine or computer “to lend speed and efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” CLS Bank Int' l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 11269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Applicants suggest that the claims improve the functioning of the computer system and that the steps recited in amended claim 1 result in a tangible improvement to the functioning of the computer network. Applicants further argue that by creating and managing a pre-funded sub-wallet and using it as the basis for immediate authorization, the system overcomes the inherent latency of the public cryptocurrency network.
This argument is not persuasive because the argued increase in speed and capability comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer that includes a processor, computer readable medium comprising code executable by the processor, rather than the claimed method itself. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (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.”).
On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicants contend that the claims are patent eligible under Step 2B because the combination of: (1) an intermediary server maintaining a pre-funded sub-wallet on behalf of a cryptocurrency exchange; (2) the server performing a two-part verification: first checking its own pre-funded sub-wallet and then checking the user's wallet; and (3) using the result of the sub-wallet check as the specific trigger for an immediate, off- chain authorization to a resource provider, is not a conventional arrangement and results in a solution to blockchain latency.
The argument is not convincing because as indicated above, the improvement is to a financial process not to an improvement in technology. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and performing well understood, routine, and conventional activities such as receiving a transaction request from a user device, receiving a confirmation by a server computer, and receiving, by the server computer from the resource provider computer, an acceptance message cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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