DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
The reply filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 9 and 19 have been canceled. Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20, filed 03/16/2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks state –
“Applicant respectfully submits that at the very least detecting tampering with one or both of firmware and an enclosure of the security system base station (i.e., by the first processing circuitry), receiving signaling in response to the detection at the second processing circuitry, and performing at least one cryptocurrency action (i.e., by the second processing circuitry) does not describe or set forth (i.e., does not recite) a mere abstract idea, at least because the method implemented by or the features of the claimed security system base station cannot be performed by a human without a computer/device, and the functions performed by the claimed security system base station cannot be performed in the human mind, i.e., is not a mental process. At the very least, detecting tampering of firmware or an enclosure by the first processing circuitry of the security system base station, receiving signaling, where the signaling is received from the first processing circuitry at the second processing circuitry, and performing a cryptocurrency action cannot be performed by a human, in the human mind.
Claims 1 and 11 are directed to the implementation and use of a hardware-based cryptocurrency wallet in a security system base station of a premises security system at least by detecting tampering and receiving signaling that is received by the first processing circuitry of the security system base station. That is, independent claims 1 and 11 do not recite activity that falls within "a mental process." As such, claims 1 and 11 do not recite a judicial exception and are patent eligible under 2A - Prong 1.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, the claims do not claim “receiving signaling in response to the detection at the second processing circuitry, and performing at least one cryptocurrency action” or “receiving signaling, where the signaling is received from the first processing circuitry at the second processing circuitry, and performing a cryptocurrency action.” The claim language does not recite any signal(s) that are being received at the second processing circuitry, therefore, the remarks related to “receiving signaling” are not relevant to what is being claimed. Furthermore, the patent eligibility analysis in the Non-Final Rejection 12/19/2025 indicated that a group of limitations fall under the bucket of a mental process and another group of limitations fall under the bucket of certain methods of organizing human activity, and the first and second processing circuitries, amongst others, were considered additional elements. The remarks have failed to adequately address why the limitations do not recite the respective abstract idea(s) and why the additional elements have not been generically recited. Merely providing a statement that the claim elements cannot be performed in the human mind does not constitute sufficient evidence to overcome the rejection. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section II states – “the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person…and activity that involves multiple people…,and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer…may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping.” Therefore, reciting a computer/device does not automatically preclude the claim limitation(s) from being considered to recite an abstract idea.
“Besides the steps/features alleged by the Office Action to be an abstract idea (i.e., as listed on page 3 of the Office Action), amended independent claims 1 and 11 recite first processing circuitry that detects at least one premises alarm condition based on the monitoring, the premises alarm condition comprising tampering with one or both of firmware and an enclosure of the security system base station. That is, taking into consideration all the claim elements and how those elements interact and impact each other (i.e., detecting tampering by first processing circuitry, indicating (in response to the detection) a cryptocurrency action to be performed by second processing circuitry, and performing (by second processing circuitry) the cryptocurrency action), each one of claims 1 and 11 as a whole integrates the alleged exception into a practical application (e.g., providing cryptocurrency security functions of cryptocurrency wallet such as a hardware wallet embedded in a security system base station by detecting when the security system base station's firmware or enclosure has been tampered with). Therefore, independent claims 1 and 11 are patent eligible at 2A - Prong 2 for at least this reason, and Applicant requests the rejection to claims 1 and 11 be withdrawn for at least this reason.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, when considering if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, in the computing arts, the analysis considers whether the limitations improve the functioning of a computer or to any other technology/technical field MPEP 2106.05(a), apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment MPEP 2106.05(e). The remarks assert that “providing cryptocurrency security functions of cryptocurrency wallet such as a hardware wallet embedded in a security system base station by detecting when the security system base station’s firmware or enclosure has been tampered with” is a practical application that overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. However, providing security to a cryptocurrency wallet is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology/technical field, applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, and/or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment. Rather, the additional elements of a premises security system, security system base station, cryptocurrency management device, plurality of premises devices, and a first and second processing circuitry have all been generically recited such that they amount to no more than using a computer as a tool to carry out the abstract idea(s). In other words, the claimed invention is using a computer to monitor a premise and detect an alarm condition, both of which can be reasonably performed in the human mind, and using a computer to perform an action based on an indication, which is analogous to following rules and/or instructions.
“Applicant's Specification describes such an improvement to the technology or technical field. For example, Applicant's Specification provides detail as to implementing and using a cryptocurrency wallet in the premises security system (Applicant's Specification as originally filed: ¶ [0002]). More specifically, the cryptocurrency wallet (e.g., embedded hardware-based
cryptocurrency wallet) is described (Applicant's Specification as originally filed: ¶ ¶ [0002] and
[0018]). By embedding a hardware-based cryptocurrency wallet into a premises security system,
users of the hardware-based cryptocurrency wallet receive the benefits of a more secure
mechanism for storing cryptocurrency (e.g., one that can perform certain cryptocurrency related
actions when tampering with the firmware or enclosure of the security system base station is
detected). For example, a hardware-based cryptocurrency wallet may be physically located in the customer's home or business (i.e., security system base station), monitored by the premises
security system, and maintained and monitored by security provider. In addition, a hardware-based cryptocurrency wallet protects against compromised networks (e.g., Wi-Fi networks), unsecured computers, malware, and keyloggers.
Independent claims 1 and 11 reflect the disclosed improvement at least by reciting that the cryptocurrency management device receives, from the first processing circuitry of the security system base station, signaling including a cryptocurrency action to perform, the signaling being in response to detecting tampering with firmware or an enclosure of the security system base station. As such, independent claims 1 and 11 as a whole integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application at least by virtue of improving the functioning of a computer or improvement to other technology or technical field, e.g., the field of cryptocurrency management.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, providing security to a hardware-based cryptocurrency wallet is not improving the functioning of the hardware-based cryptocurrency wallet itself or the security system base station. While it is improving the security to the cryptocurrency wallet by preventing unwanted access to the wallet, improving security to a device, in this case, is not improving the functioning of the device itself. Therefore, the claimed invention amounts to no more than using a computer as a tool to provide the security.
“Claims 1 and 11 recite more than mere instructions to implement an alleged abstract idea as alleged on pages 4-5 of the Office Action. As discussed above, at least the claimed detection of tampering and performing of a cryptocurrency action in response is not mere instructions to implement a mere abstract idea without significantly more. In other words, Applicant's claimed arrangement does not simply add a cryptocurrency management device, processing circuity, and a security system base station, but provides functionality for detecting tampering and responding by performing a cryptocurrency action. Put simply, Applicant's claimed features correspond to more than a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea. As such, Applicant's arrangement recites significantly more, and Applicant requests the rejection to claims 1 and 11 be withdrawn for at least this reason.”
In response to Applicant’s remarks, the remarks are generic in nature and have not provided any evidence as to why the limitations are no than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Please see the remarks above and the detailed analysis below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-20, filed 03/16/2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks state –
“However, Bansal is completely silent as to (by first processing circuitry of the security system base station) detecting tampering with firmware or an enclosure of a security base station, indicating a cryptocurrency action to second processing circuitry in response to the detection, and performing (by the second processing circuitry of the security system base station) the cryptocurrency action.
However, Islam is also completely silent as to (by first processing circuitry of the security system base station) detecting tampering with firmware or an enclosure of a security base station, indicating a cryptocurrency action to second processing circuitry in response to the detection, and performing (by the second processing circuitry of the security system base station) the cryptocurrency action.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, the “enclosure of the security system base station” has been broadly recited such that any enclosure of the security system base station, such as a home in which the security system base station resides, would read on the current claim language. Furthermore, the claim recites “tampering with one or both…,” therefore, tampering with just the enclosure would read on the claim language. Bansal et al. U.S. 2018/0174136 discloses an alarm system that actively or passively monitors property of a user or property where a user’s personal information may be stored. This may include a house, an apartment, a car, a boat, or a workplace, among others [0013]. Bansal further discloses that the alarm types include glass breakage, unplanned door opening [0016], and/or window break [0017]. The alarm system may be a physical property alarm system [0037]. Therefore, the property in which the alarm system resides and is monitoring is considered the “enclosure of the security system base station,” and breaking a window and/or opening a door unexpectedly of the monitored property is considered “tampering with one of an enclosure of the security system base station.” Thus, under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, Bansal discloses the amended limitations of the claims. Since Bansal discloses the amended limitations, the remarks against Islam et al. U.S. 2020/0097953 need not be addressed.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0079] – “If the firmware has not been tampered with, at step S204, the method comprises determining whether an enclosure” should be “If the firmware has not been tampered with, at step S206, the method comprises determining whether an enclosure”
Paragraph [0079] – “If the enclosure has not been tampered with, at step S204, the method comprises entering a PIN on device keypad” should be “If the enclosure has not been tampered with, at step S208, the method comprises entering a PIN on device keypad”
Paragraph [0079] – “If recovery words cannot be found in memory 37, memory 37 including saved recovery words is inserted in storage interface 35, and the method is returned to step S204” should be “If recovery words cannot be found in memory 37, memory 37 including saved recovery words is inserted in storage interface 35, and the method is returned to step S208”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: “part of a security system base station” should be “part of the security system base station.” 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 20 are 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 10 depends from claim 9, a claim that has been canceled. Since claim 10 depends from a canceled claim, the scope of the claim is not clear. For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 10 shall be interpreted to be dependent from independent claim 1.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19, a claim that has been canceled. Since claim 20 depends from a canceled claim, the scope of the claim is not clear. For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 20 shall be interpreted to be dependent from independent claim 11.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 10 and 20 are of improper dependent form for failing to reference a claim previously set forth since claims 9 and 19 have been canceled, respectively.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Examiner suggests amending claims 10 and 20 to depend from independent claims 1 and 11, respectively.
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 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 fall into at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A.1:
The limitations of independent claim 1 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. Independent claim 11 recites similar distinguishing features as claim 1, therefore the following eligibility analysis shall apply to both independent claims 1 and 11. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
A premises security system, comprising a security system base station, the security system base station comprising:
a cryptocurrency management device comprising a hardware-based cryptocurrency wallet configured to store cryptocurrency;
first processing circuitry configured to:
monitor a premises via a plurality of premises devices;
detect at least one premises alarm condition based on the monitoring, the at least one premises alarm condition comprising tampering with one or both of firmware and an enclosure of the security system base station; and
in response to the at least one premises alarm condition, indicate, to the cryptocurrency management device, at least one cryptocurrency action to perform; and
the cryptocurrency management device comprising:
second processing circuitry configured to:
perform the at least one cryptocurrency action according to the indication.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, D-E recite limitations that are reasonably categorized under mental processes. To monitor a premise and detect an alarm condition based on the monitoring can be practically performed in the human mind. F and I recite limitations that are reasonably categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity. Performing a cryptocurrency action in response to an indication based on the detected alarm condition is analogous to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of following rules or instructions.
Claims 1 and 11 recite at least one abstract idea. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.2.
Step 2A.2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional element(s) not in bold above.
A-C, G-H, “via a plurality of premises devices” in D, and “to the cryptocurrency management device” in F have all been recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computing components. Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, the claims amount to no more than mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Furthermore, “a hardware-based cryptocurrency wallet configured to store cryptocurrency” is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity because the limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on the structure of the cryptocurrency management device or the method performed by a premises security system/security system base station.
Claims 1 and 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when considerations from Step 2A.2 are re-evaluated. Furthermore, storing information (limitation B) is considered by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 14, and 16 further define the at least one cryptocurrency action. These actions elaborate on the abstract idea(s) without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 13, 15, and 17 further define the alarm condition. These conditions elaborate on the abstract idea(s) without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 8 and 18 do not introduce any new additional elements. Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 10 and 20 introduce a new additional element: remote monitoring center. However, the additional element has been recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a generic computing component. Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, the claims amount to no more than mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application such that the abstract idea amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10-11, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bansal et al. U.S. 2018/0174136 (herein as “Bansal”) in view of Islam et al. U.S. 2020/0097953 (herein as “Islam”).
Re Claims 1 and 11, Bansal discloses a premises security system, comprising a security system base station (Fig. 1 – at least alarm system 106 and wallet platform 114 are collectively analogous to the security system base station), the security system base station comprising:
a […] management device comprising a hardware-based […] wallet configured to store […] financial instruments [0020] – “a wallet platform 114 may be an aggregator of multiple financial instruments,” [0024] – “The wallet platform 114 may use a processor with memory”;
first processing circuitry configured to [0015] – “sensors associated with the alarm system 106”:
monitor a premises via a plurality of premises devices [0013] – “The alarm system 106 may be any of a number of systems that actively or passively monitor property”;
detect at least one premises alarm condition based on the monitoring [0031] – “an alarm notification may be received from a personal property alarm of the person,” the at least one premises alarm condition comprising tampering with one or both of firmware and an enclosure of the security system base station ([0016] – “alarm types may represent…glass breakage, unplanned door opening…of the property,” i.e. tampering with enclosure, [0037] - the alarm system may be a physical property alarm system, i.e. enclosure of the security system base station); and
in response to the at least one premises alarm condition, indicate, to the […] management device, at least one […] action to perform ([0023] – “the alarm system may independently send an alarm signal to the wallet platform 114,” [0017] – an alarm signal may have an actionable alarm type, and the actionable alarm type may have a one-to-one mapping to a contingent action); and
the […] management device comprising:
second processing circuitry configured to [0024] – “The wallet platform 114 may use a processor with memory”:
perform the at least one […] action according to the indication ([0025] – “The wallet platform 114 may implement the appropriate contingent action or contingent actions,” based on the received alarm signal [0024]).
However, Bansal does not expressly disclose
the management device is a cryptocurrency management device,
the wallet is a cryptocurrency wallet,
the financial instruments are cryptocurrency,
the action is a cryptocurrency action.
Islam discloses system and method for management of cryptocurrency systems. Specifically, Islam discloses
the management device is a cryptocurrency management device [0018] – “cryptocurrency management system”,
the wallet is a cryptocurrency wallet ([0017] – “cryptocurrency management system (e.g., a cryptocurrency wallet)”,
the financial instruments are cryptocurrency ([0018] – cryptocurrency assets can be monitored for different attacks),
the action is a cryptocurrency action ([0021] – “executing a predetermined action” such as “halting transactions for the cryptocurrency asset”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bansal’s management device, wallet, financial instruments, and action to be for cryptocurrency as taught in Islam. The modification is a simple substitution of one known element, i.e. cryptocurrency, for another to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, one would be motivated to make the modification to improve security for cryptocurrency assets by minimizing risk of attacks Islam, [0027], [0035].
Re Claims 6 and 16, Bansal in view of Islam teach the premises security system of claim 1, and Bansal in view of Islam further teach wherein the at least one cryptocurrency action comprises one or both of locking the hardware-based cryptocurrency wallet Bansal, [0032] – “putting a proactive hold on all accounts associated with financial instruments held by the user” and resetting at least one key for interacting with the hardware-based cryptocurrency wallet.
Re Claims 7 and 17, Bansal in view of Islam teach the premises security system of claim 6, and Bansal in view of Islam further teach wherein the at least one premises alarm condition corresponds to detecting motion proximate the cryptocurrency management device while the premises security system is in an armed state (Bansal, [0016] – alarm types may include “unexpected movements in an interior of the property”).
Since the claimed invention and the specification do not define what is considered “proximate,” under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, detecting unexpected movements in a property monitored by an alarm system, i.e. armed, and triggering the alarm signal to be sent to the wallet platform 114 [0016-17], [0023] is analogous to detecting motion proximate the cryptocurrency management device because the wallet platform is associated with the monitored user’s property Fig. 2, [0020], and therefore any detection of motion at such property is detection of motion proximate the wallet platform 114.
Re Claims 8 and 18, Bansal in view of Islam teach the premises security system of claim 1, and Bansal in view of Islam further teach wherein the cryptocurrency management device and the first processing circuitry are part of a security system base station (Bansal, Fig. 1 – wallet platform 114 and alarm system 106).
Re Claims 10 and 20, Bansal in view of Islam teach the premises security system of claim 9, and Bansal in view of Islam further teach wherein the cryptocurrency management device and the security base station are monitored by a remote monitoring center Bansal, Fig. 1 – alarm monitoring service 107, Bansal, [0013], [0026] – the alarm monitoring service 107 can send/receive from both alarm system 106 and wallet platform 114.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bansal et al. U.S. 2018/0174136 (herein as “Bansal”) in view of Islam et al. U.S. 2020/0097953 (herein as “Islam”) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Godsey et al. U.S. 2017/0193504 (herein as “Godsey”).
Re Claims 2 and 12, Bansal in view of Islam teach the premises security system of claim 1, however, Bansal in view of Islam do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one cryptocurrency action comprises initiating a transfer of cryptocurrency to a predefined location that is off-site from the premises.
Godsey discloses financial management systems and associated methods. Specifically, Godsey discloses
wherein the at least one cryptocurrency action comprises initiating a transfer of cryptocurrency to a predefined location that is off-site from the premises [0048] – “upon determining that the at least one condition has…been met, financial management application 177 may convey a signal…wherein electronic wallet application 127, in response to the signal, may perform one or more actions (e.g…transfer money (e.g, from one account to another)…).”
Condition can be defined by the user [0011]. Therefore, the location is “predefined.” Furthermore, the user account(s) exist at the payment provider server Fig. 1 170, which is separate from the user device Fig. 1 110, and is reasonably interpreted to be “off-site from the premises,” wherein premises is analogous to a user device and/or where a user is located.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bansal in view of Islam’s property alarm system to protect financial instruments with the teachings of initiating a transfer of money, i.e. cryptocurrency, to a predefined location that is off-site from the premises in Godsey. One would be motivated to make this combination to provide a customizable financial management system and thereby allow a user to customize their finances Godsey, [0037-39].
Re Claims 3 and 13, Bansal in view of Islam and Godsey teach the premises security system of claim 2, and Bansal in view of Islam and Godsey further teach wherein the at least one premises alarm condition corresponds to a fire condition or a flood condition Bansal, [0016] – “fire or smoke alarms.”
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bansal et al. U.S. 2018/0174136 (herein as “Bansal”) in view of Islam et al. U.S. 2020/0097953 (herein as “Islam”) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Hamilton et al. U.S. 2017/0337390 (herein as “Hamilton”).
Re Claims 4 and 14, Bansal in view of Islam teach the premises security system of claim 1, however, Bansal in view of Islam do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one cryptocurrency action comprises resetting one or both of a secret key and a factory key for interacting with the hardware-based cryptocurrency wallet.
Hamilton discloses data protection at factory reset. Specifically, Hamilton discloses
wherein the at least one cryptocurrency action comprises resetting one or both of a secret key and a factory key for interacting with the hardware-based cryptocurrency wallet ([0062] – “Replacing the previously stored factory reset value with the new factory reset value” in response to a request for factory reset of the computing device, which can include financial information [0023], i.e. “hardware-based cryptocurrency wallet”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bansal in view of Islam’s property alarm system to protect financial instruments with the teachings of resetting a factory key for interacting with the computing device, i.e. hardware-based cryptocurrency wallet, in Hamilton. One would be motivated to make the combination to protect information stored on the computing device Hamilton, [0002].
Re Claims 5 and 15, Bansal in view of Islam and Hamilton teach the premises security system of claim 4, and Bansal in view of Islam and Hamilton further teach wherein the at least one premises alarm condition corresponds to an intrusion alarm that is associated with an intrusion at the premises Bansal, [0029], Table 1 – “Home Intrusion.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hess U.S. Patent 6,831,557 directed to method of providing alarm based wireless security monitoring. See at least Col. 4, lines 38-47.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/CHRISTINE DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights