DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 02/27/2026.
Claim 1 is canceled while claims 2-21 are pending and are examined hereon.
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 .
Priority
This application is a continuation or continuation-in-part or divisional application of Application 18/155,662 and Provisional Applications 63/370,768, 63/314,424, 63/314,132, 63/311,283, 63/303,569, 63/300,202. See MPEP § 201.06 (divisional), MPEP § 201.07 (continuation), or MPEP § 201.08 (continuation-in-part). In accordance with MPEP § 609.02 A. 2 and MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the prior-filed applications. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the prior-filed applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, applicant is reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the prior-filed applications need not be resubmitted in this application unless applicant desires the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, applicant is reminded that the prosecution history of the prior-filed applications is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the prior-filed application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed Provisional Applications 63/314,132, 63/311,283, 63/303,569, 63/300,202 (including any material incorporated by reference), fail to provide adequate support in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. § 112 for one or more claims of this application. The above-listed applications fail to provide support for claims 2 and 12. The applications at least do not disclose, “generating a path value, wherein the path value is generated using a pseudorandom number generator based at least in part on a seed value; accessing an address for a storage location based on the path value, wherein accessing the address for the storage location comprises concatenating the path value with a domain value that indicates a storage provider associated with the storage location; recovering a configuration file from the storage location, wherein: the configuration file comprises a configuration value; and the configuration value is specific to an individual user interface configuration; and applying the individual user interface configuration to a specific user interface.” (Claims 2 and 12) “wherein the pseudo-random number generator comprises a cryptographic hash function.” (Claims 3 and 13) “wherein the storage location is a particular digital wallet.” (Claims 4 and 14) “wherein: the specific classification corresponds to a set of digital wallets that implement a particular digital rights management (DRM) system; and the particular digital wallet is compatible with all other digital wallets that implement the particular DRM system,” (claims 6 and 16) “wherein the set of digital wallets each store an identification list comprising: a particular storage provider that services each wallet of the set of digital wallets; and a particular domain value of the particular storage provider that services the each wallet of the set of digital wallets. (claims 7 and 17) “configuration value comprises: content associated with the token; and an access control list associated with the token.” (Claims 8 and 18) “wherein the configuration value is encrypted, at least in part, based on an encrypting value that is generated from the seed value.” (Claims 9 and 19) “wherein the configuration file further comprises an identification of at least one of: a set of hardware that is relevant to the individual user interface configuration; a set of software that is relevant to the individual user interface configuration; or a DRM system configuration that is relevant to the individual user interface configuration.” (Claims 10 and 20) “generating a new storage instance based on the configuration file, wherein the new storage instance is accessed using the specific user interface.” (Claims 11 and 21)
Therefore, as claims 2-4, 6-14 and 16-21 of the present application are not supported by the disclosure of prior-filed Provisional Applications 63/314,132, 63/311,283, 63/303,569, 63/300,202 hence the current claims 2-4, 6-14 and 16-21 of the present application do not receive priority to the filing dates of those Applications.
For the above reasons, the claims affected and their dependents are being compared to the prior art based on a filing date of 02/27/2022 (the filing date of the Provisional Application 63/314,424).
Further, the disclosure of the prior-filed Application 18/155,662 and Provisional Applications 63/370,768, 63/314,424, 63/314,132, 63/311,283, 63/303,569, 63/300,202 (including any material incorporated by reference), fail to provide adequate support in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. § 112 for one or more claims of this application. The above-listed applications fail to provide support for claims 5 and 15. The applications at least do not disclose, “wherein the address comprises a filename, wherein the filename: identifies the particular digital wallet as having a specific classification; and is created independently both of the seed value and of an owner of the particular digital wallet.” (Claims 5 and 15).
Therefore, as claims 5 and 15 of the present application are not supported by the disclosure of prior-filed Application 18/155,662 and Provisional Application 63/370,768, 63/314,424, 63/314,132, 63/311,283, 63/303,569, 63/300,202, the current claims 5 and 15 of the present application do not receive priority to the filing dates of those Applications.
For the above reasons, the claims affected and their dependents are being compared to the prior art based on a filing date of 05/29/2025 (the filing date of the instant application).
Although 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1) permits the filing of priority papers up to and including the date for payment of the issue fee, it is advisable that such papers be filed promptly after filing the application.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 2-11 are directed to “A method…” (Process). Claims 12-21 are directed to “A non-transitory computer-readable medium…” (Article of Manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite an abstract idea of data access, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and “Mathematical Concepts,” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test since the steps include managing relationships and mathematical calculations (See MPEP 2106.04 & 2106.04(a)). The use of a physical aid to help perform Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concept steps does not negate the Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concept nature of the limitations, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further, claims can recite a Methods of Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concepts even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to processing file associated data to access files in storages for providing to users which is managing relationships of data and using mathematical calculations to generate addresses for accessing data in storages. More specifically, the following non-underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the underlined, bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claims 2, as similarly as 12,
generating a path value, wherein the path value is generated using a pseudorandom number generator based at least in part on a seed value;
accessing an address for a storage location based on the path value,
wherein accessing the address for the storage location comprises concatenating the path value with a domain value that indicates a storage provider associated with the storage location;
recovering a configuration file from the storage location,
wherein:
the configuration file comprises a configuration value; and
the configuration value is specific to an individual user interface configuration; and
applying the individual user interface configuration to a specific user interface.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the use of the additional elements as a tools to implement the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Additionally, the additional element of “generating a path value, wherein the path value is generated using a pseudorandom number generator…” also does not improve a computer as it represents the mere performance of a mathematical calculation by a computer. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), using the additional elements to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of data access. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and implement the abstract idea. Further, the additional element of generating path value also does not improve a computer as it represents the mere performance of a mathematical calculation by a computer. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-11 and 13-21 further describe the abstract idea of data access. That is, although claims 3 and 13 recites “pseudo-random number generator comprises a cryptographic hash function,” claims 8 and 18 recites “wherein the configuration value is encrypted, at least in part, based on an encrypting value that is generated from the seed value,” claims 9 and 19 recites “wherein the configuration value is encrypted, at least in part, based on an encrypting value that is generated from the seed value,” also does not improve a computer as it represents the mere performance of a mathematical calculation by a computer. Further, claims 11 and 21 recite further functional steps, but each simply describe the abstract idea of data access. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 5 as similarly as claim 15 recites “wherein the address comprises a filename, wherein the filename: identifies the particular digital wallet as having a specific classification; and is created independently both of the seed value and of an owner of the particular digital wallet.” Although the Applicant’s Specification discloses,
[0210] “An optional filename is config-record is an optional filename. All wallets of a specific type can have common filenames independently of ownership or seed.”
[0218] “Subsequent to upload of metadata, a wallet can write a list of filenames of uploaded files to a centralized storage system, optionally encrypted.”
The Applicant’s Specification does not provide for the full breadth of the claim language. That is, although the Specification provide for writing of a filenames to a storage and the wallets having a common filenames, this do not provide for an address comprising filenames, the filename identifying digital wallets with specific classification nor creating of the filename independently of both seed value and owner of the particular digital wallet. Therefore, the Applicant’s Specification is insufficient to support the claim language. (See MPEP 2163 (I))
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are also rejected as each depend on claims 5 and 15, respectively.
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.
Claims 2-3, 8-13 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginter et al. (US 2003/0105721 A1) in view of Jun et al. (US 2006/0259492 A1).
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Ginter discloses A method for displaying configuration data, and A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause a processor to perform a process for displaying configuration data, the process comprising: (Fig. 7; Pars. [0455]-[0466] “FIG. 7 shows an example of an electronic appliance 600 including SPU 500. Electronic appliance 600 may be practically any kind of electrical or electronic device, such as: a computer… a display 614…”)
generating a path value (“keys”), wherein the path value is generated using a pseudorandom number generator based at least in part on a seed value; (Par. [1599] “Therefore, keys should in general be derived from a reliably random source, for example, by a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator seeded from such a source. [1601] “These random numbers may be used to “seed” a cryptographically strong pseudo-random number generator (e.g., DES operated in Output Feedback Mode) for generation of additional key values derived from the random seed.”)
accessing an address (“routing information”) for a storage location based on the path value, (Figs. 54; Pars. [1518]-[1520] “ACCESS method 2000 reads the ACCESS method MDE from the secure database, reads it in accordance with the ACCESS method DTD, and loads encrypted content source and routing information based on the MDE (blocks 2010, 2012). This source and routing information specifies the location of the encrypted content. ACCESS method 2000 then determines whether a connection to the content is available (decision block 2014). This “connection” could be, for example, an on-line connection to a remote site, a real-time information feed, or a path to a secure/protected resource, for example.” [2241])
wherein accessing the address for the storage location comprises a storage provider associated with the storage location; (Pars. [0898] “External services manager 772 may, for example, obtain external service routing information from name services manager 752, and then initiate contact to a particular external service (e.g., another VDE electronic appliance 600, a financial clearinghouse, etc.) through communications manager 776.” [0899] “External Services Manager 772 may manage a connection to the electronic appliance 600 where the VDE objects desired (or their content) is stored…”)
recovering a configuration file (“Objects”) from the storage location, (Figs. 54, 74; Pars. [0221] “For example, smart objects may travel to and/or from remote information resource locations and fulfill requests for electronic information content. Smart objects can, for example, be transmitted to a remote location to perform a specified database search on behalf of a user or otherwise “intelligently” search remote one or more repositories of information for user desired information. After identifying desired information at one or more remote locations, by for example, performing one or more database searches, a smart object may return via communication to the user in the form of a secure “return object” containing retrieved information.” [1943] “The remote site 3020 returns the now “full” smart object 3000 back to the original sender (the user) at their VDE node 3010 via path 3024.” [2241] “After the content is located, the content may be transmitted across the network to the repository or it may be delivered directly from where it is stored to the requesting end user.”)
wherein:
the configuration file comprises a configuration value (“containers”); (Figs. 5A-5B, 73-74; Pars. [0136] “VDE, in its preferred embodiment, employs object software technology and uses object technology to form “containers” for delivery of information that is (at least in part) encrypted or otherwise secured. These containers may contain electronic content products or other electronic information and some or all of their associated permissions (control) information…”) and
the configuration value is specific to an individual user interface configuration; (Figs. 12A, 72B; Pars. [0911] “object submittal manager 774 provides a user interface 774a that allows the user to create an object configuration file 1240 specifying certain characteristics of a VDE object 300 to be created. This user interface 774a may, for example, allow the user to specify that she wants to create an object, allow the user to designate the content the object will contain, and allow the user to specify certain other aspects of the information to be contained within the object (e.g., rules and control information, identifying information, etc.)” [1883]) and
applying the individual user interface configuration to a specific user interface. (Figs. 12A, 72B; Pars. [0911], [1881] “FIG. 72B shows an example of a “pop-up” user interface 686 dialog that is activated when an action by the user has been “trapped,” in this case to warn the user about the amount of expense that will be incurred by the user's action, as well as to alert the user about the object 300 which has been requested and what that particular object will cost to use. In this example, the interface dialog provides a button allowing the user to request further detailed information about the object, including full text descriptions, a list of associated files, and perhaps a history of past usage of the object including any residual rights to use the object or associated discounts.” [1885] “Thus, pop-up user interface dialogues can be provided to specify user preferences, such as setting limits on budgets and/or other aspects of object content usage during any one session or over a certain duration of time or until a certain point in time. Dialogs can also be provided for selecting object related usage options such as selecting meters and budgets to be used with one or more objects. Selection of options may be applied to types (that is classes) of objects by associating the instruction with one or more identifying parameters related to the desired one or more types.” [1886])
Ginter does not explicitly disclose concatenating the path value with a domain value that indicates a provider.
Jun disclose concatenating the path value (“key”) with a domain value (“target”) that indicates a provider. (Pars. [0022]-[0027] “A one-time token is constructed as follows: token=hash(concatenate(seed, target, key, timestamp)), where: hash() is any suitable one-way function… concatenate() is a string concatenation function, e.g. concatenate(“A”, “B”) ==“AB” seed=any randomly generated string, target=an identifier string to verify, e.g. the URL of the item…” )
Therefore, 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 to simply substitute the name services record table that provides addresses for storage location (Par. [1303] “This information within name services record table 452 may, for example, provide routing information…”) of Ginter in view of Jun in order to communicate with remote storage systems associated with contents using routing information (Ginter, Pars. [0898]-[0899]) and to construct a onetime use addresses which prevents attacks by unauthorized entities used to access contents at a remote storage (Jun, Pars. [0019], [0021] “A one-time token need not be secure against hackers or other parties capable of intercepting the traffic, since even if the token is copied or stolen, the token cannot be used again. For the one-time token, the seller recipient 300 of such token authenticates that the token is valid, as explained below.” [0033]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Ginter in view of Jun discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Ginter discloses wherein the pseudo-random number generator comprises a cryptographic hash function. (Par. [1601] “These random numbers may be used to “seed” a cryptographically strong pseudo-random number generator (e.g., DES operated in Output Feedback Mode) for generation of additional key values derived from the random seed.”)
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Ginter in view of Jun discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Ginter discloses wherein the configuration value comprises:
content (Par. [0441] “Container 302 may contain information content 304 in electronic (such as “digital”) form.”)
associated with the token; (Pars. [0139] “Such payment can be contained within a VDE container created automatically by a VDE installation in response to control information (located… in one or more permissions records) stipulating the “withdrawal” of credit or electronic currency (such as tokens) from an electronic account (for example, an account securely maintained by a user's VDE installation secure subsystem) based upon usage of VDE controlled electronic content…” [0219]) and
an access control list (“rules and controls”) (Figs. 5A-B; Pars. [0390]-[0393], [0421], [0438] “FIG. 5A shows how the virtual distribution environment 100, in a preferred embodiment, may package information elements (content) into a “container” 302 so the information can't be accessed except as provided by its “rules and controls.””)
associated with the token. (Pars. [0139], [0219])
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Ginter in view of Jun discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Ginter discloses wherein the configuration value is encrypted, at least in part, (Par. [0136] “VDE in its preferred embodiment, employs object software technology and uses object technology to form “containers” for delivery of information that is (at least in part) encrypted or otherwise secured.”) based on an encrypting value that is generated from the seed value. (Pars. [0545] “the encryption layer relies on secure processes and information (e.g., encryption algorithms and keys) present within SPU 500, the encryption layer effectively “extends” the SPU security barrier 502 to protect information the SPU 500 stores in memory external to it.” [1599] “Therefore, keys should in general be derived from a reliably random source, for example, by a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator seeded from such a source.”)
With respect to claims 10 and 20, Ginter in view of Jun discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Ginter discloses wherein the configuration file further comprises an identification of at least one of:
a set of hardware that is relevant to the individual user interface configuration;
a set of software that is relevant to the individual user interface configuration; or
a DRM system configuration (“permissions”) that is relevant to the individual user interface configuration. (Figs. 12A, 72B; Pars. [0446] “The “permissions record” 808 specifies the rights associated with the object 300 such as, for example, who can open the container 302, who can use the object's contents, who can distribute the object, and what other control mechanisms must be active. For example, permissions record 808 may specify a user's rights to use, distribute and/or administer the container 302 and its content.” [0910], [0911], [0915] “The object configuration file 1240 may be passed to container manager 764 within object switch 734. Container manager 734 is responsible for constructing an object 300 based on the object configuration file 1240 and further user input. The user may interact with the object construction 1230 through another instance 774(2) of object submittal manager 774. In this further user interaction provided by object submittal manager 774, the user may specify permissions, rules and/or control information to be applied to or associated with the new object 300.”)
With respect to claims 11 and 21, Ginter in view of Jun discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Ginter discloses:
generating a new storage instance based on the configuration file, (Par. [0913] “The object construction stage 1230 may take the object configuration file 1240 and the information or content to be included within the new object as input, construct an object based on these inputs, and store the object within object repository 728.” [0916])
wherein the new storage instance is accessed using the specific user interface. (Fig. FIG. 12A; Pars. [0910] “FIG. 12A shows how object submittal manager 774 may be used to communicate with a user of electronic appliance 600 to help to create a new VDE object 300.” [0911] “In one of its roles or instances, object submittal manager 774 provides a user interface 774…” [0916] “Container manager 764 may then write the new object to object repository 687, and the user or the electronic appliance may “registers the new object by including appropriate information within secure database 610.”)
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginter et al. (US 2003/0105721 A1) in view of Jun et al. (US 2006/0259492 A1), in further view of Liu Lixin (WO-2020051910-A1).
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Ginter in view of Jun discloses all the limitations as described above.
Neither Ginter nor does Jun explicitly disclose wherein the storage location is a particular digital wallet.
However, Liu discloses wherein the storage location is a particular digital wallet. (Fig. 1; Par. [0068] “the hardware wallet 110 also includes an option for a firmware upgrade. This may occur via the receipt of QR codes encoding encrypted and signed data which can then be verified and decrypted by the encryption layer 112 on the hardware wallet 110 and flashed to the firmware store of the hardware wallet 110.”)
Therefore, 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 to simply substitute the electronic wallet that contains electronic currencies and credits (Par. [0225] “The card can be used as an “electronic wallet” and contain electronic currency as well as credit provided by a clearinghouse.”) of Ginter, Jun in view of Liu in order to perform payment during financial activities using payment methods stored within wallets (Ginter, Par. [0225] “The card can act as a convergence point for financial activities of a consumer regarding many, if not all, merchant, banking, and on-line financial transactions, including supporting home banking activities.”) and to access users resources such as balances using only wallets (Liu, Par. [0067] “the wallet interface application 136 generates child public keys using the master public key (using a standard cryptographic protocol, such as HMAC- SHA), and transmits batches of such addresses to the wallet server system 140, which responds with a balance for these addresses.”). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to reader such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginter et al. (US 2003/0105721 A1) in view of Jun et al. (US 2006/0259492 A1), in view of Liu Lixin (WO-2020051910-A1) in further view of Kim Jinkook (KR 20240080151 A).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Ginter, Jun in view of Liu discloses all the limitations as described above.
Neither Ginter, Jun nor does Liu explicitly disclose: wherein the address comprises a filename, wherein the filename:
identifies the particular digital wallet as having a specific classification; and
is created independently both of the seed value and of an owner of the particular digital wallet.
However, the limitation of “wherein the address comprises a filename, wherein the filename: identifies the particular digital wallet as having a specific classification,” the claims describe the address and the recited characteristics of these items are not processed to carry out any positively recited steps or functions hence these limitations recite nonfunctional descriptive material. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983))
On the other hand, Kim disclose wherein the filename is created independently both of the seed value and of an owner of the particular digital wallet. (Page 18, Par. 8 “The file name can be created with the wallet name set by the user when creating the wallet.”)
Here, Kim discloses that creation of filenames only require wallet names and independent of seed values and owners of wallets themselves hence Kim is sufficient in terms of art.
Therefore, 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 to simply substitute the electronic wallet that contains electronic currencies and credits (Par. [0225] “The card can be used as an “electronic wallet” and contain electronic currency as well as credit provided by a clearinghouse.”) of Ginter, Jun, Liu in view of Kim in order to perform payment during financial activities using payment methods stored within wallets (Ginter, Par. [0225] “The card can act as a convergence point for financial activities of a consumer regarding many, if not all, merchant, banking, and on-line financial transactions, including supporting home banking activities.”) and to specify electronic currencies added to specific wallet (Kim, Page 18, Par. 3 “At this time, a database file is created and stored in each wallet folder with the coin added by the user as the file name. The database file saved with the '..db' extension appears to be developed and utilized by Coinomi Wallet itself,”). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to reader such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
With respect to claims 6-7 and 16-17, Ginter, Jun, Liu in view of Kim discloses all the limitations as described above.
Neither Ginter nor Jun explicitly disclose “wherein: the specific classification corresponds to a set of digital wallets that implement a particular digital rights management (DRM) system; and the particular digital wallet is compatible with all other digital wallets that implement the particular DRM system,” (claims 6 and 16) and wherein the set of digital wallets each store an identification list comprising: a particular storage provider that services each wallet of the set of digital wallets; and a particular domain value of the particular storage provider that services the each wallet of the set of digital wallets. (claims 7 and 17) However, those limitations describe the digital wallets data in which the recited characteristics of these items are not processed to carry out any positively recited steps or functions hence these limitations recite nonfunctional descriptive material. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PGPub Pachler et al (US 2020/0145227 A1) a seed value; a path value based on the seed value; (Pars. [0021]- [0022]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WODAJO GETACHEW whose telephone number is (469)295-9069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00 CST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/WODAJO GETACHEW/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights