DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment and response filed on 09/03/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 13-17, and 20 have been amended.
Claim 8 has been canceled.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 10, 13, 17, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Arguments and Assertions by the Applicant
Applicant’s arguments received 09/03/2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-7 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been updated to conform to current guidelines and maintained accordingly.
The relevant question is whether the claims do more than collect, store, display, and compare data to optimize a central bank digital currency (CBDC) objective on a generic computer. This does not appear to be the case. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and filtering data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. Moreover, the technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. Therefore the claims are not significantly more than recitations of a judicial exception. In summary, each step does no more than require a common computer to perform universal computer functions. Therefore, the claims are directed to using a computer as a tool to follow instructions.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of petitioner's method, system, and/or computer readable medium add nothing that is not already present when the steps reconsidered separately. Viewed as a whole, the method, system, and/or computer readable medium claims simply recite the concept of analyzing storing data in the form of digital data, comparing/categorizing data, and displaying the data.
The method, system, and/or computer readable medium claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of organizing and analyzing data using some unspecified, generic computer. Consequently, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As in TLI, Applicant’s claims are “not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combing the two.” See TLI Communications LLC v. A.V. Automotive, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The specification does not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two. The specification fails to provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominantly describes the system and methods in purely functional terms.” Id. "Instead, the claims, as noted, are simply directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner." Id.
The claims in this case fall into a familiar class of claims “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. The focus of the asserted claims, as illustrated by the claims, is on collecting information, analyzing it, displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and sending instruction to implement result. The outer limits of “abstract idea” need not be defined, nor at this stage exclude the possibility that any particular inventive means are to be found somewhere in the claims, to conclude that these claims focus on an abstract idea - and hence require stage-two analysis under §101. Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the courts have treated, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In a similar vein, the courts have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). In addition, merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In this case, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. This invention claims a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, processing that data, then displaying the results, without any particular or asserted inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
For stage 2 of the analysis, merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.
Referring to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A., the claims in this case do not even require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it. See, e.g., US Patent 8,401,710 B2 (Budhraja et. al.), col. 8, lines 51–62 (referring to existing phasor data sources); J.A. 6969–71 (describing workings and history of phasor data use); Electric Power Group Br. at 21–22; Reply Br. at 5 (new algorithms not claimed). As a result, the claims do not require an inventive set of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques that would generate new data. They do not invoke any novel inventive programming. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information—to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users, Reply Br. at 6; Electric Power Group Br. at 14–15—by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis.
With regard to claims 7 and 15, the common knowledge declared to be well-known in the art is hereby taken to be admitted prior art because the Applicant either failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE or failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE adequately. See MPEP §2144.03. To adequately traverse the examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE, the Applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE would be inadequate. Support for the Applicant’s assertion should be included.
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 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 9 and 16):
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
detect that a present location of the client device is outside of a first territorial area for a first digital currency for a blockchain network based at least in part on location data provided by the location detection device of the client device;; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
transmit an intent to execute a purchase in a second digital currency associated with a second territorial area to an authentication service based at least in part on the present location of the client device; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
identify a software update for wallet functionality associated with the second digital currency for the second territorial area; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
update a client application to include the wallet functionality associated with the second digital currency for the second territorial area based at least in part on the software update, the client application being updated to provide the client application with a user interface for interfacing with a point of sale device accessible in the second territorial area. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
Additional dependent claims 2-7, 10-15, and 17-20 do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 9 and 16):
…a system
… comprising: a client device comprising a processor, a location detection device, and a memory;
…machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the client device to at least:
…a non-transitory computer-readable medium
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadet (USPGP 2021/0233170 A1) hereinafter CADET, in view of Yan (USPGP 2022/0292496 A1), hereinafter YAN, and further in view of Belleville et al. (USPGP 2019/0073665 A1), hereinafter BELLEVILLE.
Claims 1, 9, 16:
CADET as shown below discloses the following limitations:
a client device comprising a processor and a memory; (see at least Figures 3A, 3B as well as associated and related text)
machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the client device to at least: (see at least Figures 3A, 3B as well as associated and related text)
(see at least paragraphs 0004, 0012)
transmit an intent to execute a purchase in a second digital currency associated with a second territorial area to an authentication service based at least in part on the present location of the client device; (see at least paragraphs 0005, 0006)
CADET does not specifically disclose the following limitations, but YAN as shown does:
identify a software update for wallet functionality associated with the second digital currency for the second territorial area; (see at least paragraphs 0036, 0068, 0069, claim 6)
update a client application to include the wallet functionality associated with the second digital currency for the second territorial area based at least in part on the software update...
In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of CADET with the technique of YAN because, “…allowing domestic and/or global transactions to take place without the hassle, inconvenience, or computational burden of traditional currency exchange processes.” (YAN: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
The combination of CADET/YAN does nor specifically disclose the following limitations:
detect that a present location of the client device is outside of a first territorial area for a first digital currency for a blockchain network…based at least in part on location data provided by the location detection device of the client device;
…the client application being updated to provide the client application with a user interface for interfacing with a point of sale device accessible in the second territorial area.
BELLEVILLE, however, in at least paragraphs 0061 and 0101 does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of CADET/YAN with the technique of BELLEVILLE because, “…allowing domestic and/or global transactions to take place without the hassle, inconvenience, or computational burden of traditional currency exchange processes.” (YAN: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 3, 11, 18:
The combination of CADET/YAN/BELLEVILLE discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. CADET further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the machine-readable instructions that update the client application further cause the client device to at least execute the software update to provide the client application access to a contactless payment feature for the second territorial area.
See at least paragraph 0057.
Claims 4, 12, 19:
The combination of CADET/YAN/BELLEVILLE discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. YAN further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the machine-readable instructions that update the client application further cause the client device to at least execute the software update to store a wallet address in a secure element of the client device, the wallet address being configured for making purchases in the second digital currency in the second territorial area.
See at least paragraph 0041. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of CADET with the technique of YAN because, “…allowing domestic and/or global transactions to take place without the hassle, inconvenience, or computational burden of traditional currency exchange processes.” (YAN: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 6, 14:
The combination of CADET/YAN/BELLEVILLE discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. YAN further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the client device to at least:
display the user interface prompt that includes an instruction for interfacing with the point of sale terminal in the second territorial area in an instance in which the client application has executed the software update.
See at least paragraphs 0108-0112. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of CADET with the technique of YAN because, “…allowing domestic and/or global transactions to take place without the hassle, inconvenience, or computational burden of traditional currency exchange processes.” (YAN: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 7 and 15 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CADET/YAN and further in view of Applicant’s own admissions, hereinafter AOA.
Claims 7, 15:
The combination of CADET/YAN discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. CADET/YAN does not specifically disclose:
wherein the machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the client device to at least:
display a user interface that includes a bar code for interfacing with a point of sale terminal based at least in part in part on the client application executing the software update.
However, the Examiner accepts AOA that it is old and well known in the e-commerce arts to utilize barcode functionality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of CADET/YAN with the technique of using barcodes because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
Bank for International Settlements. “Central bank digital currencies: system design and interoperability.” (September 2021). Retrieved online 11/20/2024. https://www.bis.org/publ/othp42_system_design.pdf
World Economic Forum. “4 key cybersecurity threats to new central bank digital currencies.” (Nov 20, 2021). Retrieved online 11/20/2024. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/11/4-key-threats-central-bank-digital-currencies/
Tarik Hansen et al. “Security Considerations for a Central Bank Digital Currency.” (February 03, 2022). Retrieved online 11/20/2024. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/security-considerations-for-a-central-bank-digital-currency-20220203.html
Foreign Art:
JUNG GU TAE et al. “SYSTEM FOR TRANSACTION FEE PAYMENT BY PROXY OF TOKEN TRANSACTION USING SMART CONTRACT AND METHOD OF THE SAME.” (KR 102601381 B1)
Unknown. “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PAYMENT FOR CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY.” (KR 102671054 B1)
SO HONGSUP. “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PAYMENT FOR CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY.” (KR 2022/0041692 A)
Applicant’s amendment filed on 09/03/2026 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)
