DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing(s) on 5/01/2025.
3. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if,” “may,” “might,” “can,” and “could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. See MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and/or boldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 8 recites a method comprising:
creating, based on performance of specified in-world activities performed by an avatar within a virtualized environment of a virtual community based on inputs received from a first user device, a first electronic value token comprising a virtual currency unique to the virtual community, wherein the in-world activities are performed via the inputs to an application;
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., creating a first electronic token), not method steps performed in the past (i.e., activities performed by an avatar). Claiming method steps in the past tense can be interpreted as the method steps performed in the past are outside the scope of the claimed method. Alternatively stated, the scope of the claimed method are the active method steps which are building off a pre-existing state. The method steps performed for creation of the pre-existing state are outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites a method comprising:
calculating, via a first application programming interface (API) function linking to BaaS functionality processed by a valuation computing platform and based on the information corresponding to the first electronic value token, a valuation of the first electronic value token;
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., calculating a valuation) not method steps performed in the past (i.e., processed by a valuation computing platform). Claiming method steps in the past tense can be interpreted as the method steps performed in the past are outside the scope of the claimed method. Alternatively stated, the scope of the claimed method are the active method steps which are building off a pre-existing state. The method steps performed for creation of the pre-existing state are outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has similar claim interpretation issues, as Claim 1 does not recite that the computer-readable medium causes a processor to process BaaS functionality.
Claim 15 has similar claim interpretation issues, as Claim 15 does not recite that the system is configured to process BaaS functionality. Examiner notes that the valuation computing platform, while connected to the claimed system, is not a component element of the claimed system.
Claim 11 recites a method comprising causing presentation, at a remote device, of a visualization comprising a user interface display of information of a user account comprising at least a quantity of the first electronic value token.
Claim elements pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material (i.e., what is displayed) and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claims 4, 5, 12, 17 and 18, due to similar claim language, result in a similar claim interpretation.
4. 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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system to perform a method and/or computer-readable medium containing instructions, when executed, causes a computer to perform a method comprising:
creating, based on performance of specified in-world activities performed by an [user] within a … environment of a … community based on inputs received from a first user …, a first … value token comprising a … currency unique to the … community …;
storing, in a banking as a service (BaaS) enabled wallet …, the first … value token;
aggregating, …, information corresponding to the first … value token, wherein the information comprises one or more of reputation, trustworthiness, and a perceived value of a product and/or service;
calculating, … , a valuation of the first … value token; and
triggering, based on a received trade input from a user … based on the valuation of the first … value token, creation of a second … value token via a … exchange of value involving the first electronic value token within a virtualized trading environment of the virtual community and between the BaaS enabled wallet and a second user account corresponding to a second BaaS enabled wallet associated with a second … platform external to the … environment, wherein the … exchange of value comprises an exchange of the first … value token and from the BaaS enabled wallet to the second … value token, and wherein the second … value token comprises a value useable outside the … community.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to exchange tokens (i.e., currency or assets) which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of an avatar (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a virtualized environment/virtual community (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), an electronic value token/ a virtual currency (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), an online interface (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), an application (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a crawler (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), an application programming interface (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a virtual exchange/virtualized trading environment (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), and a computing platform (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Dependent Claim(s) recite additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of online sources (Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16), websites (Claim(s) 3, 10), a user interface display (Claim(s) 4, 5, 11, 12, 17 and 18) and user devices/remote devices (Claim 6, 11 and 13).
In each case, the additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality such that these additional element(s) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
5. Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be a method claim rewritten as a computer-readable medium claim.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11/699,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) appear to be rewording of the same claim(s) without any new or different claim limitations.
6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehew (US PG Pub. 2011/0016009) in view of Ciptawilangga (US PG Pub. 2010/0306120) and Banipal (US PG Pub. 2021/0263078).
Regarding Claim 8, Mehew discloses a method comprising:
creating, based on performance of specified in-world activities performed by an avatar within a virtualized environment of a virtual community based on inputs received from a first user device, a first electronic value token comprising a virtual currency (LindenDollars or World of Warcraft gold) unique to the virtual community (SecondLife or World of Warcraft), wherein the in-world activities are performed via the inputs to an application. (see para. 4 and 37);
storing, in a banking as a service (BaaS) enabled wallet via an online interface, the first electronic value token (see para. 20-22, 34 and 52);
aggregating, via a crawler, information corresponding to the first electronic value token, wherein the information comprises one or more of reputation, trustworthiness (verification of users), and a perceived value of a product and/or service (recently complete trades, associated exchange rates and trends). (see para. 31-32).;
calculating, via a first application programming interface (API) function (API client) linking to BaaS functionality processed by a valuation computing platform and based on the information corresponding to the first electronic value token, a valuation of the first electronic value token (an exchange rate or a fair value). (see para. 31-32 and 52); and
triggering, based on a received trade input from a user interface and via a API function (API client) facilitating BaaS functionality and based on the valuation of the first electronic value token (LindenDollars), creation of a second electronic value token (airline miles) via a virtual exchange of value involving the first electronic value token (LindenDollars) within a virtualized trading environment of the virtual community and between the BaaS enabled wallet and a second user account corresponding to a second BaaS enabled wallet associated with a second computing platform external to the virtual environment (SecondLife), wherein the virtual exchange of value comprises an exchange of the first electronic value token (LindenDollars) and from the BaaS enabled wallet to the second electronic value token (airline miles), and wherein the second electronic value token comprises a value useable outside the virtual community (SecondLife). (see para. 37 and 52).
Mehew does not explicitly teach a method wherein the electronic value token is created based on performance of specified in-world activities performed by an avatar within a virtualized environment of a virtual community based on inputs received from a first user device, wherein the in-world activities are performed via the inputs to an application.
Ciptawilangga a method wherein the electronic value token (money) is created based on performance of specified in-world activities performed by an avatar within a virtualized environment of a virtual community based on inputs received from a first user device, wherein the in-world activities are performed via the inputs to an application. (see abstract; para. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mehew to incorporate activities to earn electronic value tokens, as disclosed by Citawilangga, as such activities are standard and conventional to earn electronic value tokens.
Mehew does not explicitly teach a second API function.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mehew and Ciptawilangga by duplicating claim elements contained in Mehew (e.g., the first API) to create additional claim elements (e.g., a second API) wherein each additional claim element would serve the same function as the original claim element. In the combination each element, original element and additional element, would merely have performed the same function as it did previously, and one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. see MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B).
Mehew does not teach a method comprising utilizing a crawler to aggregate information.
Banipal discloses a method comprising utilizing a crawler to aggregate information. (see para. 67, 95 and 99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mehew and Citwilangga to incorporate a crawler (i.e., a web crawler), as disclosed by Banipal, thereby enabling aggregation of internet data upon which to base the valuation of the electronic value token.
Regarding Claims 9-10, Mehew does not teach a method wherein the aggregating, by the crawler, the information corresponding to the first electronic value token comprises capturing the information from a plurality of online sources; or wherein the plurality of online sources comprises one or more of a news website and a social media website.
Banipal discloses a method wherein:
the aggregating, by the crawler, the information corresponding to the first electronic value token comprises capturing the information from a plurality of online sources (websites). (see abstract); and
the plurality of online sources comprises one or more of a news website and a social media website (facebook). (see para. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mehew, Citwilangga and Banipal to incorporate online sources, as disclosed by Banipal, as utilizing a web crawler to obtain information from online sources (i.e., the web) is its standard and conventional function.
Regarding Claim 12, Mehew discloses a method comprising causing presentation, at a remote device, of a visualization comprising a user interface display of an in-application virtual marketplace (alternative currency platform). (see para. 35).
Regarding Claim 13, Mehew discloses a method comprising facilitating, by a virtual exchange engine, an exchange of a quantity of first electronic tokens from the first user device and a second quantity of second electronic tokens of a second user device. (see para. 37).
Regarding Claim 14, Mehew discloses a method wherein the first electronic value token comprises an in-application virtual currency (LindenDollar) and a second electronic value token comprises a mileage reward point (airline miles). (see para. 37).
Regarding Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 and 15-20, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehew, Citwilangga and Banipal, as applied to Claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Springer (US Patent 11,011,020).
Regarding Claim 4, Mehew does not teach a computer-readable medium wherein a visualization comprises a user interface display of information of a user account comprising at least a quantity of the first electronic value token.
Springer discloses a computer-readable medium wherein a visualization comprises a user interface display of information of a user account comprising at least a quantity of the first electronic value token (account balance). (see col. 18, lines 32-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mehew, Citwilangga and Banipal to incorporate a display of the quantity of the first electronic value token, as disclosed by Springer, thereby informing the user of the available quantity of a first electronic value token available for exchange.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
7. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached at (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights