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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites the method of claim 1, wherein processing the request comprises submitting the fund transfer to the DLT network for the consensus.
Processing the request appears twice in claims 1 and 12. It is unclear which
processing step the claims further narrow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 11-13, 15, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Castinado (2019/0034922).
Castinado discloses:
1. (Currently Amended) A method, comprising:
processing, by a processing circuit of a first branch (0034, Typically, the first entity node 110 is configured, through the blockchain application 241, to detect incoming requests for a resource transfer. Upon detecting an incoming request, the first entity node 110 may generate a pending data record which comprises information regarding the resource transfer), a request for a fund transfer; processing, by a first node and a second node (0034, The pending data record may be partially validated by a threshold number of first entity nodes 110 and await further validation by the threshold number of second entity nodes 120 to complete the validation process.), the fund transfer for consensus between the first node and the second node in a distributed ledger technology (DLT) network to transfer a digital representation to the second node (0014, In such an embodiment, the first user may utilize the system to request that resources be transferred to the account of the second user, where the account is held with the second entity. Upon receiving the request, the nodes of the first entity and the nodes of the second entity validate the resource transfer by a consensus mechanism. Once the resource transfer is validated, a data record of the resource transfer is added to the blockchain.);
propagating, by the second node, a funding message (0035, Once both the first entity nodes 110 and the second entity nodes 120 have validated the pending data record, the pending data record is permanently appended to the preceding block in the blockchain.); and
processing, by a processing circuit of a second branch, the request (0037, The third party computing system 130 is typically owned and operated by a third party such as an entity such as a financial institution, a recipient of a resource transfer (e.g. a recipient of funds transferred by the user. [0043] The process concludes at block 305…At this point, the funds have been transferred to the recipient's account.)
2. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein processing the request comprises submitting the fund transfer to the DLT network for the consensus (See para. 0034 as above which refers to a blockchain application).
3. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein in response to achieve the consensus, a distributed ledger is revised to reflect the funds transfer ([0043] The process concludes at block 305, where the system appends the permanent data record to the blockchain. At this point, the funds have been transferred to the recipient's account.).
5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the request is received from a customer via an online banking platform (0024, In a typical embodiment, a first user having an account with a first entity utilizes the system to execute a resource transfer to a second user. 0027, the first entity and the second entity may be financial institutions, 0045, Payment transactions may be received at the entity, such as a financial institution across many payment rails. 0036, user application on user device for resource transfer requests).
6. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein processing the request comprises sending, by the processing circuit of the first branch, an instruction to the first node to process the transfer (0034, Typically, the first entity node 110 is configured, through the blockchain application 241, to detect incoming requests for a resource transfer. Upon detecting an incoming request, the first entity node 110 may generate a pending data record which comprises information regarding the resource transfer).
Claims 11-13, 15, 16 and 20 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado (2019/0034922) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Hearn (10,521,775).
Castinado does not disclose:
4. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein a notary participates in the consensus by signing a transaction involved in the funds transfer to confirm that the funds transfer has been completed.
However, Hearn discloses:
(20) Continuing with the example, when the notary code receives the accepted transaction, the notary verifies that the accepted transaction has been signed by the originator party and the responder party. The notary then determines whether the input state to the accepted transaction has been already consumed (e.g., spent by another transaction). The notary may maintain a consumed state storage to track the output states that have been consumed by transactions. If the input state has not been consumed, then the notary code marks the output state of the transaction that is the input state for the accepted transaction as now consumed and notarizes the accepted transaction by signing the accepted transaction with the signature of the notary to generate a notarized transaction. The notary code then sends the notarized transaction to the originator code.
Claim 14 is similarly rejected.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the references as each is directed to payment networks using a distributed ledger and for ensuring the transfer of funds.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10, 17, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado (2019/0034922) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Durvasala (2018/0075453).
Castinado does not disclose:
7. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the digital representation is a 1:1 representation of an amount of fiat currency on the DLT network.
However, Durvasala discloses:
0034- a digital balance may match a fiat balance (i.e., hard currency balance) of an account if the digital currently balance accurately reflects the fiat account balance after applying a conversion rate. For example, if the digital currency can be transferred to and from dollars at a 1:1 rate, then the digital balance matches the fiat balance when the account balances are the same or similar.
8. (Original) The method of claim 7, wherein an issuer issues the digital representation in response to receiving corresponding fiat fund from another bank account held by the first branch or the second branch
However, Duravasula discloses:
([0034] A digital currency issuer system 101 may serve as the interface between external systems (e.g., EFT systems 102 or the lending systems 104) and the payment network. Digital currency issuer system 101 may notify the digital currency smart contract 112 of any external events initiated by a user such as, for example, fund transfers or line of credit approvals.).
Castinado does not disclose:
10. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 7, wherein:
the digital representation is recorded in a distributed ledger and maintained by participants of the network; and the digital representation is tokenized fiat currency.
However, Durvasula discloses:
0027- The payment networks use a distributed ledger, which may be based on a blockchain and thus have consensus based transaction validation. Such payment networks may also enable digital currency smart contracts that enforce business workflows in a decentralized manner and keep track of account balances.
0034 - Digital currency issuer system 101 may ensure that the digital representation of balances match the fiat balances.
Claims 17, 18 and 19 are similarly rejected.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the references as each is directed to payment networks using a distributed ledger and for ensuring the transfer of funds.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado (2019/0034922) and further in view of Durvasala (2018/0075453) as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Simon (2016/0012424).
Castinado does not disclose:
9. (Original) The method of claim 8, wherein the fiat fund received by the issuer is held in a collateral account.
Simon discloses:
0054 - In one embodiment, this may be accomplished by placing collateral such as fiat currency or precious metals with a third-party custodian. In one embodiment, this may be accomplished by placing collateral such as fiat currency or precious metals with a third-party custodian.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the references as each is directed to payment networks using a distributed ledger and for ensuring the transfer of funds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 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 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://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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights