Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the preliminary amendment filed on September 12, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20270710 for references purposes only.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 12, 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because it recites “the stablecoin settlement disintermediation system.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “a stablecoin settlement disintermediation system.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites “depositing funds of the receive transaction.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “depositing the funds of the receive transaction.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites “the stablecoin.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this term. For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “a stablecoin.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea of completing a transaction request, which is a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 1, representative of claims 7 and 13, includes the following limitations:
Receiving verification of a user;
Issuing an instance of a digital wallet;
Receiving a transaction request;
Completing the transaction.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim limitations recite the following additional elements that are beyond the judicial exception:
Digital wallet application;
Mobile device;
One or more blockchain networks.
These additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
They add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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).
They generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The claim limitations do not recite additional elements, or an ordered combination of additional elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional element of a “mobile device” is mere instructions to apply an exception, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional element of a “mobile device” is re-evaluated to determine whether it constitutes significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional element of a “mobile device” is simply the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 and MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element only provides a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to “apply it”. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357 and MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional elements of a “digital wallet application” and “one or more blockchain networks” generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional elements of a “digital wallet application” and “one or more blockchain networks” are re-evaluated to determine whether they constitute significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional elements of a “digital wallet application” and “one or more blockchain networks” are merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 and MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, a “digital wallet application” and “one or more blockchain networks” merely limit the claims to the computer field. See FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, when considering all the additional claim elements both individually and as an ordered combination, Examiner finds that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception.
The dependent claims fail to cure this deficiency and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 2 recites the wallet holds more than one digital currency, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites the wallets holds a first cryptocurrency and a second cryptocurrency, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites the request includes acquiring one or more stablecoin tokens, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data gathering). See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 5 recites the tokens are native to the system, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites the transaction is between the user and another user, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tapang (US 2020/0074460) in view of Mawson et al. (US 2023/0186285).
Claims 1, 7
Tapang discloses:
issuing an instance (e.g. ethers, see [0128]) of a digital wallet to a digital wallet application (user wallet interface, see [0069-0071]) on a mobile device (user computational device, see [0069]) associated with the at least one user;
receiving a transaction request (pay for a product or service, see [0077]) from the digital wallet application;
completing the transaction request (sending stabletoken, see [0079]) using one or more blockchain networks (to vendor address on the blockchain, see [0079]) coupled to the stablecoin settlement disintermediation system.
Tapang does not disclose:
receiving verification of at least one user.
Mawson teaches:
receiving verification of at least one user (verify identify of user, see [0166]).
Tapang discloses issuing an instance, receiving a transaction request, and completing the request. Tapang does not disclose receiving verification of the user, but Mawson does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system and method for a stable cryptocurrency of Tapang with the receiving verification of the user of Mawson because 1) a need exists for a cryptocurrency that is both popular and stable (see Tapang [0016]); and 2) a need exists for allowing a transfer with different networks and different subsets of available resources (see Mawson [0002]). Receiving verification of the user can be used for compliance purposes (see Mawson [0166]).
Claims 2, 8
Furthermore, Tapang discloses:
the instance of the digital wallet holds more than one digital currency in parallel (a plurality of cryptocurrencies, see [0071]).
Claims 3, 9
Furthermore, Tapang discloses:
the digital wallet holds a first type of cryptocurrency (e.g. stablecoin, see [0073]) associated with a first blockchain network (e.g. blockchain node A, see [0074]) and a second type of cryptocurrency (a different cryptocurrency, see [0073]) associated with a second blockchain network (e.g. blockchain node B on different blockchain, see [0074, 0082]).
Claims 4, 10
Furthermore, Tapang discloses:
the transaction request includes a request to acquire one or more stablecoin tokens (stabletoken, see [0128]).
Claims 5, 11
Furthermore, Tapang discloses:
the one or more stablecoin tokens are native (stabletoken, see [0128]) to the stablecoin settlement disintermediation system.
Claims 6, 12
Furthermore, Tapang discloses:
the one or more stablecoin tokens are used to complete transactions between the at least one user (customer, see [0093]) and another user (vendor, see [0093]) connected to the stablecoin settlement disintermediation system.
Claim 13
Tapang discloses:
initializing a digital wallet (user wallet interface, see [0069-0071]) on the user device (user computational device, see [0069]);
receiving, from the digital wallet, an acquisition request (make payment, see [0081]) of a digital asset (cryptocurrency, see [0082]), wherein the digital asset is associated with a settlement disintermediation platform;
creating a transaction (purchase a product or service, see [0082]) based on the acquisition request;
sending the transaction (sending stabletoken, see [0079]) to a blockchain network (blockchain, see [0079]) to complete the transaction; and
in response to the sending, updating the digital wallet (deduct the base amount of payment plus the fees, see [0084]) based at least in part on information sent to the blockchain network to complete the transaction.
Tapang does not disclose:
receiving verification of at least one user associated with a user device.
Mawson teaches:
receiving verification of at least one user (verify identify of user, see [0166]) associated with a user device.
Tapang discloses initializing a digital wallet, receiving an acquisition request, creating a transaction, sending the transaction, and updating the digital wallet. Tapang does not disclose receiving verification of the user, but Mawson does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system and method for a stable cryptocurrency of Tapang with the receiving verification of the user of Mawson because 1) a need exists for a cryptocurrency that is both popular and stable (see Tapang [0016]); and 2) a need exists for allowing a transfer with different networks and different subsets of available resources (see Mawson [0002]). Receiving verification of the user can be used for compliance purposes (see Mawson [0166]).
Claim 14
Furthermore, Tapang discloses:
receiving, from the blockchain network, confirmation that the transaction has been confirmed (receive permission to deduct, see [0084]); and
updating the digital wallet (deduct the base amount of payment plus the fees, see [0084]) based at least in part on the received confirmation.
Claim 15
Furthermore, Tapang discloses:
the digital asset is a stablecoin (stablecoin, see [0071]).
Claim 16
Furthermore, Tapang discloses:
the stablecoin is used to complete transactions (stablecoin to accept in payment, see [0073]) on the settlement disintermediation platform associated with the digital wallet.
Claim 17
Furthermore, Tapang discloses:
the settlement disintermediation platform is used to settle (settle, see [0063]).
Claim 18
Furthermore, Tapang discloses:
the digital wallet holds more than one digital asset at a time in parallel (a plurality of cryptocurrencies, see [0071]).
Claim 19
Furthermore, Tapang discloses:
intercepting, by the settlement disintermediation platform, a receive transaction (a payment request, see [0119]) for the user from a settlement rail; and
routing funds of the receive transaction by minting tokens of the stablecoin or pulling from a pool of already minted tokens (stabletokens from the exchange, see [0120]) of the stablecoin;
depositing funds of the receive transaction to a Proof of Reserve Depository account (stabletoken is transfer, see [0126]); and
sending stablecoin tokens corresponding 1:1 to funds deposited to the Proof of Reserve Depository account (recipient account, see [0118]) to the digital wallet.
Claim 20
Furthermore, Tapang discloses:
the stablecoin is 100% Proof of Reserve in fiat (backed by fiat currency, see [0100]), 100% liquidity on demand (sold automatically on exchange, see [0129]), and generates yield based on one or more smart contracts (smart contract, see [0128]) created by the settlement disintermediation platform and executed by least one or more blockchain networks.
Claim Interpretation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure (see attached form PTO-892).
Ferguson et al. (US 2024/0089091) discloses a secure cryptographic transfer using multiparty computation.
Examiner hereby adopts the following definitions under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), Examiner points to these other sources to support her interpretation of the claims.1 Additionally, these definitions are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
configuration “(1) (A) (software) The arrangement of a computer system or component as defined by the number, nature, and interconnections of its constituent parts.” “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to hardware configuration or software configuration.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition, IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, Dec. 2000.
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
1 While most definition(s) are cited because these terms are found in the claims, Examiner may have provided additional definition(s) to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the definitions themselves or in the prior art.
Prosecution Insights