DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed 22 April 2025.
The applicant's claim for benefit of provisional application US 63638056, filed 24 April 2024 has been received and acknowledged.
Applicant election of Group 2, Claims 6-13, addition of Claims 21-32, and cancellation of Claims 1-5 and 14-20 have been received and are acknowledged.
Claims 6-13 and 21-32 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 6-13 and 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
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. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method and the system of payment processing. In the instant case, Claims 21-28 are directed to a process. Claims 6-13 and 29-32 are directed to a system.
(2a) Prong 1: Payment processing is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity [ fundamental economic practices and organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
6. (Original) A system comprising … to:
responsive to a transaction request between a user and a merchant for a fiat currency, providing one or more cryptocurrencies available for selection by a user on a user interface;
converting, based at least on a selected cryptocurrency, a fiat currency amount into a cryptocurrency amount, the fiat currency amount to satisfy a transaction request;
generating a transaction-specific cryptocurrency wallet to hold the cryptocurrency amount;
… the cryptocurrency amount from the transaction-specific cryptocurrency wallet to a cryptocurrency broker;
causing a transfer of funds from a settlement bank to a merchant bank, the transfer of funds comprising an equivalent fiat currency amount to satisfy the transaction request; and
causing a converted fiat currency amount from the cryptocurrency broker to be transmitted to the settlement bank.
21. (New) A method comprising:
converting, based at least on a selected cryptocurrency, a fiat currency amount into a cryptocurrency amount, the fiat currency amount to satisfy a transaction request;
generating a transaction-specific cryptocurrency wallet to hold the cryptocurrency amount;
… the cryptocurrency amount from the transaction-specific cryptocurrency wallet to a cryptocurrency broker;
causing a transfer of funds from a settlement bank to a merchant bank, the transfer of funds comprising an equivalent fiat currency amount to satisfy the transaction request; and
causing a converted fiat currency amount from the cryptocurrency broker to be transmitted to the settlement bank.
29. (New) A system comprising … to:
generate a transaction-specific cryptocurrency wallet to hold a cryptocurrency amount converted from a fiat currency amount in response to a transaction request;
… the cryptocurrency amount from a transaction-specific cryptocurrency wallet to a cryptocurrency broker;
cause a transfer of funds from a settlement bank to a merchant bank, the transfer of funds comprising an equivalent fiat currency amount to satisfy the transaction request; and
cause a converted fiat currency amount from the cryptocurrency broker to be transmitted to the settlement bank.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of providing… converting… generating… causing… causing…. do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. providing.. transmitting…) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use ( See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 21-28 are directed to a process. Claims 6-13 and 29-32 are directed to a system.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (processors) merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification [29] hardware… processors… microprocessors… … )
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (7-13, 22-28, 30-32) introduces the additional element of further defining steps: … converting…(Claims 7 and 22); … archiving or discarding… (Claims 8, 23, and 30); …verifying…(Claims 9 and 22); … authenticating… (Claim 10 and 25); …receiving… (Claim 11, 26, and 31); ..generating… (Claims 12, 27 and 32); and further defining other elements… transaction request… (Claim 13 and 28) . These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because these limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use ( See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because these elements amount to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification [29] hardware… processors… microprocessors… … )
Therefore, Claims 6-13 and 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10108938 B1, Brock et al. hereinafter referred to as Brock in view of US 20160148198 A1, Kelley hereinafter referred to as Kelley.
Claims 6, 21 and 29
Brock discloses method and systems comprising:
(Claim 6) responsive to a transaction request between a user and a merchant for a fiat currency, providing one or more cryptocurrencies available for selection by a user on a user interface; (See at least Brock Fig 4A, 302. Receive items for purchase and calculate value owed in US Dollars… 304, 306 present payment options, receive selection of cryptocurrency payment option_ C14L56-65, transaction information… payment options… selection of cryptocurrency payment options)
(Claims 6 and 21) converting, based at least on a selected cryptocurrency, a fiat currency amount into a cryptocurrency amount, the fiat currency amount to satisfy a transaction request; (See at least Brock Fig 4A, 310, 312, transmit transaction details, calculate value owed in cryptocurrency…)
….
transmitting the cryptocurrency amount from the…. cryptocurrency wallet to a cryptocurrency broker; (See at least Brock Fig 4A, 310, 312, transmit transaction details, calculate value owed in cryptocurrency…314 Debit Cryptocurrency ledger)
causing a transfer of funds from a settlement bank to a merchant bank, the transfer of funds comprising an equivalent fiat currency amount to satisfy the transaction request; and; (See at least Brock, Fig. 2 bank; Fig 4A, 310, 312, transmit transaction details, calculate value owed in cryptocurrency…314 Debit Cryptocurrency ledger 316 debit payment service US dollars ledger and credit merchant ledger in US dollars 318 record transaction between customer and merchant; C5L30-65 acquiring bank/issuing bank; C6L11-17, banks associated with the merchants or with customer payment instruments…)
causing a converted fiat currency amount from the cryptocurrency broker to be transmitted to the settlement bank. (See at least Brock, Fig. 2 bank; Fig 4A, 310, 312, transmit transaction details, calculate value owed in cryptocurrency…314 Debit Cryptocurrency ledger 316 debit payment service US dollars ledger and credit merchant ledger in US dollars 318 record transaction between customer and merchant; C5L30-65 acquiring bank/issuing bank; C6L11-17, banks associated with the merchants or with customer payment instruments…)
Brock does not directly disclose the following; however Kelley teaches:
generating a transaction-specific cryptocurrency wallet to hold the cryptocurrency amount; (See Kelley, [26] transaction specific digital wallet…)
… transaction-specific…(See Kelley, [26] transaction specific digital wallet…)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Brock discloses a method and system of a cryptocurrency payment network including fiat currency exchange rate feature. Kelley is another method and system of cryptocurrency payment management including a transaction based/specific transaction wallet that can be recycled. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and system of a cryptocurrency payment network including fiat currency exchange rate feature and including a transaction specific wallet). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Brock/ Kelley.
Claims 7 and 22
Brock and Kelley disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 6 and 21.
Brock further discloses:
wherein converting the fiat currency comprises generating one or more transaction fees further comprising one or more exchange rate fees and broker fees. (See at least Brock, C15L20-35, transaction fees or exchange rates, etc. )
Claims 8, 23 and 30
Brock and Kelley disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 6, 21 and 29.
Brock does not directly disclose the following; however Kelley teaches:
archiving or discarding the transaction-specific cryptocurrency wallet upon completion of the transaction request. (See Kelley, [53] transaction specific digital wallet … recycled…reads on discarding… )
Claims 9 and 24
Brock and Kelley disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 6 and 21.
Brock further discloses:
verifying that the user and the merchant are registered to complete the transaction request(See at least Brock,C15L 47-55 .. merchant profile with payment service… merchants not registered… customers registered… C17L28-35, payment service… verify that the transfer is legitimate and complete the transaction)
Claims 10 and 25
Brock and Kelley disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 6 and 21.
Brock further discloses:
authenticating the user with at least one of a PIN, password, or biometric. (See at least Brock,C11L54-C12L3, password… PIN… biometric authentication)
Claims 13 and 28
Brock and Kelley disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 6 and 21.
Brock further discloses:
wherein the transaction request is initiated by a quick response (QR) code scanned from a user device associated with the user. (See at least Brock, C11L32-36, QR Code, that can be used to identify the user…)
Claims 11, 12, 26, 27, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock in view of Kelley further in view of US 20220300918 A1, Yan hereinafter referred to as Yan.
Claims 11, 26 and 31
Brock and Kelley disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 6, 21 and 29.
Brock further discloses transaction details and a QR code with alias details. (See at least Brock, C11L10-23, identification of items for purchase… C11L32-46, QR Code, that can be used to identify the user…alias… alias can be conceived and used for the first time in a given transaction… can be reused for a specific merchant… )
Brock and Kelley do not directly disclose the following; however Yan teaches:
receiving, from a QR code, transaction details comprising at least one of a merchant ID, transaction amount, and itemization. ( See at least Yan, [138] transaction details… amount of transaction .. goods sought to be purchased… QR code…)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Brock discloses a method and system of a cryptocurrency payment network including fiat currency exchange rate feature. Kelley is another method and system of cryptocurrency payment management including a transaction based/specific transaction wallet that can be recycled. Yan teaches another method and system of a cryptocurrency payment network processing (i.e. credit and debit token based transactions in a blockchain). One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and system of a cryptocurrency payment network including fiat currency exchange rate feature and including a transaction specific wallet and transaction features such as QR code with specific details and a refund feature). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Brock/ Kelley/Yan.
Claims 12, 27, and 32
Brock and Kelley disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 6, 21 and 29.
Brock and Kelley do not directly disclose the following; however Yan teaches:
generating a refund for the transaction request by causing the settlement bank to transmit a refund amount to a user account. ( See at least Yan, [136] …refund...)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Brock discloses a method and system of a cryptocurrency payment network including fiat currency exchange rate feature. Kelley is another method and system of cryptocurrency payment management including a transaction based/specific transaction wallet that can be recycled. Yan teaches another method and system of a cryptocurrency payment network processing (i.e. credit and debit token based transactions in a blockchain). One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and system of a cryptocurrency payment network including fiat currency exchange rate feature and including a transaction specific wallet and transaction features such as QR code with specific details and a refund feature). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Brock/ Kelley/Yan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0364686 A1 – method of using cryptocurrency to transact fiat currency purchases using conventional POS apparatus
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights