DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in reply to the application filed on August 28, 2025.
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12/406,300. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims feature a request to transfer cryptocurrency from a first user to a second user by determining that the first user account has a sufficient balance, transmitting an identification of a terminal to dispense fiat currency and updating the account to account for the debit.
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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Claim 1 recites a method. Claim 8 recites a system claim. Claim 15 recites a system claim.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 1 (representative the substantially similar limitations of Claims 1, 8 and 15) recites the abstract idea of transferring currency. The idea is described by the following limitations:
receiving a request to transfer an amount of cryptocurrency, the request comprising a timeframe for transferring the amount of cryptocurrency;
upon indicating that an account has a cryptocurrency balance that satisfies the request, transmitting an identification of a terminal and a unique token;
causing to dispense the amount of cryptocurrency in fiat currency upon the terminal receiving the unique token within the timeframe; and
upon receiving an indication that the terminal has dispensed the fiat currency debiting the amount of cryptocurrency from the account associated with the first device.
The Applicant Specification indicates that the application related to conducting peer to peer payments using blockchain technology. (See Applicant Spec para 2)
Notably, the claims exclude the analytics server, the platform hosted by the analytics server and the indication that the claims are related to a private blockchain hosted and maintained by the analytics server that disclosed by the specification, which broadens the contours of the invention claimed.
Under a BRI, the claims reflect no more than an existing approach to transferring currency after a request is made. The indication that there is a sufficient balance to satisfy a request, updating records after fiat currency has been dispensed and record keeping records of the debit are steps undertaken in transferring currency.
As to certain methods of organizing human activity, the steps involve fundamental economic practices or principles (transferring currency); commercial interactions (business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (following rules or instructions).
In the case of instant claims, the claims recite no more than receiving instructions and using generic computer technology to process, compare data and update records indicating currency has been debited from an account. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 1 recites at least one processor, a first electronic device, a second electronic device, a blockchain, an electronic terminal, and a terminal server.
Claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, a set of instructions, at least one processor, a first electronic device, a second electronic device, a blockchain, an electronic terminal, and a terminal server.
Claim 15 recites at least one processor, a first electronic device, a second electronic device, a blockchain, an electronic terminal, and a terminal server.
In particular, the claims only recite at least one processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a set of instructions, a first electronic device, a second electronic device, a blockchain, an electronic terminal and a terminal server which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); performing repetitive calculations (Bancorp – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and electronically scanning or extracting data (Content Extraction – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“FIG. 1 illustrates components of a system 100 for facilitating blockchain-based peer-to-peer transactions, according to an embodiment. The system 100 may comprise an analytics server 110, a plurality of peer nodes 120a-c, computing device 130, a network 140, a system database 150, an electronic terminal 160, and its host server 170, and a recipient device 180. Aspects of the system 100 may be configured to employ and manage one or more system blockchains. Various features of the system 100 may be connected using a network, such as a network 140. Network 140 may be any synchronous or asynchronous network” (See Applicant Spec para 14)
“The analytics server 110 may generate and display a user interface on the computing device 130 and/or the nodes of the peer nodes 120a-c. The analytics server 110 may be configurable administrative devices that analyze and maintain data of transactions between peer nodes 120A-c. The analytics server 110 may host a website accessible to end-users such as peer nodes 120a-c and/or computing device 130. The website is sometimes referred to herein as the platform or electronic platform. The analytics server 110 may be any computing device comprising a processor and non-transitory machine-readable storage capable of executing the various tasks and processes described herein. Non-limiting examples of such computing devices may include workstation computers, laptop computers, server computers, laptop computers, and the like. Further and as described above, each of the analytics server 110 may be or include a server or multiple servers. Although three analytics server is shown, any number of analytics servers may be utilized.” (See Applicant Spec para 17)
“The analytics server 110 may execute software applications configured to display the user interface (e.g., host a website), which may generate and serve various webpages to the computing device 130 and/or the peer nodes 120a-c. The webpages may be used to generate and access data stored on the system database 150 or a blockchain hosted or maintained by the peer nodes 120a-c and/or the analytics server 110. In some implementations, the analytics server 110 may be configured to require user authentication based upon a set of user authorization credentials (e.g., username, password, biometrics, cryptographic certificate, and the like). In such implementations, the analytics server 110 may access a system database 150 configured to store user credentials, which the analytics server 110 may be configured to reference to determine whether a set of entered credentials (purportedly authenticating the user) match an appropriate set of credentials that identify and authenticate the user.” (See Applicant Spec para 18)
“A computing device 130 may be any computing device that allows a user to interact with the analytics server 110 via a webpage generated by the analytics server 110. The computing device 130 may execute an Internet browser or local application that accesses the analytics server 110 to issue requests or instructions to the analytics server 110 to access data of the system blockchain (e.g., transmit instructions to the analytics server 110). The computing device 130 may transmit credentials from user inputs to the analytics server 110. The analytics server 110 may authenticate the user and/or determine a user role based on their credentials.” (See Applicant Spec para 19)
“As an example of the computing device 130 operations, the computing device 130 may execute an Internet browser than accesses a web page hosted by the analytics server 110 hosting a transaction website (e.g., the platform). The transaction website may allow a user to upload a transaction request comprising a set of transaction attributes directly into the website. The transaction request may be a request to liquidate virtual assets stored onto the system blockchain using the electronic terminal 160 to a recipient operating the recipient device 180.” (See Applicant Spec para 21)
“The system database 150 may be hosted on any number of computing devices comprising a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium and may be capable of performing the various tasks described herein. The system database 150 may be accessed by the analytics server 110 via a network.” (See Applicant Spec para 26)
“Peer nodes 120a-c may represent one or more members of the platform hosted by the analytics server 110. Peer nodes 120a-c may represent any group of computing devices (e.g., any group of computing devices that perform transactions with each other and maintain a blockchain for such transactions). Peer nodes 120a-c may or may not be a part of analytics server 110. A peer node 120a-c may be any computing device comprising a processor and a non-transitory machine readable storage medium capable of performing the various tasks and processes described herein. Non-limiting examples of a peer node may be a workstation computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, and server computer.” (See Applicant Spec para 31)
“The system 100 may also include an electronic terminal 160, which is connected to the analytics server 110b. The electronic terminal 160 is any electronic terminal configured to dispense cash, such as an automated teller machine or a cash machine. In some configurations, the electronic terminal 160 may be connected (e.g., hosted) by an independent server, such as the host server 170. In some configurations, the electronic terminal 160 may be hosted by the analytics server 110b itself. Even though system 100 illustrates a single electronic terminal, in some configurations, the analytics server may be in communication with multiple electronic terminals, each of which is configured to collect recipient data (e.g., unique transaction token) and dispense the transaction amount in a fiat currency.” (See Applicant Spec para 41)
“The system 100 may also include recipient device 180. The recipient device 180 may be any computing device comprising a processor and non-transitory machine-readable storage capable of executing the various tasks and processes described herein. Non-limiting examples of such computing devices may include workstation computers, laptop computers, server computers, laptop computers, and the like. In some embodiments, the recipient device 180 may be a mobile phone operated by the recipient.” (See Applicant Spec para 42)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 further define the abstract idea that is presented in the respective independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above.
No additional hardware components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea .
Thus, Claims 1-20 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raja et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0019537) (“Raja”) in view of Ricotta et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0139033) (“Ricotta”) and Song et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0293576)
Regarding Claim 1, Raja discloses the following:
A method comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor from a first electronic device, a request to transfer an amount of cryptocurrency to a second electronic device, the request comprising a timeframe for transferring the amount of cryptocurrency; (See Raja paras 41-45, 47, Fig. 2 – cash authorization system receives cash request from a computing device of user 102A; cash request initiated by user 102A [first user] where the cash request specifies another user as the recipient of a cash request; the cash authorization system generates a one-time code that can be a one-time authorization code that is unique, single use code that is unusable and invalid with another transaction or request and may have a lifetime; in an example, the cash request manager may provide the one-time authorization code to the computing device of another user associated with the pending cash request)
identifying, by the at least one processor, a blockchain associated with the first electronic device and the cryptocurrency, wherein no block instance within a set of block instances of the blockchain comprises account information or an identifier of the second electronic device indicating that the second electronic device is not a node of the blockchain; (See Raja paras 41-45 – user specifies another user as a recipient of a cash request)
upon at least one block instance within the set of block instances indicating that an account associated with the first electronic device has a cryptocurrency balance that satisfies the request, transmitting, by the at least one processor to the second electronic device, an identification of an electronic terminal and a unique token; (See Raja paras 45-47 – cash authorization system generates a one-time authorization code for the cash request and communicates the one-time code to a user (e.g., user 102N [second user] to allow distribution of the requested cash at a cash machine. The cash request manager may associate a generated one-time authorization code with one or more cash machines, one of which may fulfill the cash request [identification of an electronic terminal]. For example, cash request manager may generate a one-time authorization code for a pending cash request and may use a single use PIN, a single use alphanumeric code or a signal user QR code, etc. and associate a generated one time authorization code with a cash request to allow secure cardless fulfillment at a cash machine 108A or one or more cash machines 108A-N [electronic terminal identification]) In an example, cash request manager may provide the one-time authorization code to the computing device of another user 102N associated with a pending cash request (e.g., via an application, text message, etc.) [transmitting a unique token and identifying the electronic terminal]
causing, by the at least one processor, the electronic terminal to dispense the amount of cryptocurrency in fiat currency upon the electronic terminal receiving the unique token within the timeframe, by transmitting an instruction to a terminal server in communication with the electronic terminal; and (See Raja paras 28, 45-47, 49-50, 58-59 – one time authorization code is sent to cash validator and when the user provided code matches, the requested cash [fiat] is distributed; in addition, cash validator validation may comprise determining that a one-time authorization code associated with the cash request has not expired [within the timeframe])
upon receiving an indication that the electronic terminal has dispensed the fiat currency, appending, by the at least one processor, a new block instance corresponding to debiting the amount of cryptocurrency from the account associated with the first electronic device to the blockchain. (See Raja paras 60,68 – when the cash request is fulfilled, the authorization code is invalidated; reports completion of the cash request to the cash manager)
Raja discloses his invention as to systems, methods and computer program products for providing secure cardless cash withdrawal where a user can withdraw cash from a financial account at a cash machine without the user of a card. (See Raja para 12)
Figure 1 discloses an exemplary system architecture that includes users and user machines 102A-102N, financial institutions 106A-106N, cash machines 108A-108N, and server machine connected to a network where the network may be a public, private or wide area network. (See Raja para 16 and Fig, 1)
Raja discloses cash requests that comprise one or more of an identifier, a user selected cash machine to fulfill a cash request, a financial institution account to serve as a source of funding for a cash request, an amount of cash to be supplied by a cash machine and a currency for the requested cash to be supplied. (See Raja paras 43-44)
While Raja discloses the invention as to the elements noted above, Raja does not fully disclose that the cash request source is cryptocurrency, identifying a blockchain associated with the first electronic device and the cryptocurrency, wherein no block instance within a set of block instances of the blockchain comprises account information of the second electronic device, at least one block instance indicating that an account associated with the first electronic device has a cryptocurrency balance that satisfies the request or generating a new block instance of the blockchain corresponding to the debited amount of cryptocurrency from the first account associated with the first electronic device.
Ricotta discloses his invention as to a cryptocurrency wallet that may include one or more fiat currency accounts and one or more digital currency accounts. (See Ricotta para 17) The monetary conversion system is disclosed associated with the crypto wallet implements a layered distributed ledger for the currency wallet. (See Ricotta para 19) As disclosed, a monetary conversion system may exchange funds on the fly (i.e., in real-time) between the digital currency accounts to allow for purchase of virtual or physical goods, services at POS terminals or to obtain fiat cash at an ATM. (See Ricotta paras 18-20 – real time updates) The monetary conversion system converts funds from one or more digital currencies into the fiat currency for use and each currency wallet operates with an independent ledger and maintains a balance as determined interaction with the intelligent balance service. (See Ricotta para 21) Given a set of inputs, constraints and currency values, the intelligent balance service provides a spendable balance which may be represented in fiat currency. (See Ricotta para 21) In an embodiment, a reserve account is used when a person wishes to purchase crypto currency to convert to fiat currency, the value of the reserve account may be a calculated amount and the spending limit may be calculated as the value of the transaction account minus the value of the reserve account – thus producing the amount the user has available for use. (See Ricotta para 22 – amount of cryptocurrency satisfies the request) Settlement services settles transaction across multiple currency wallets and the stored values are balanced and maintained. (See Ricotta paras 22-24 – updates the stored values in accounts) In some instances, funds may take longer than the time available to complete a transaction in which case the settlement service may handle completion of the transaction and update appropriate balances after completion of the transaction. (See Ricotta para 22 – funds are updated across wallets, updated in batches) In an embodiment, distributed reserve services may provide a pool of funds that allow settlement services to complete a transaction in the absence of sufficient funds in a reserve account. (See Ricotta para 22)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have modified the systems, methods and computer program products of providing secure cardless cash withdrawals at ATMs as disclosed by Raja with the cryptocurrency wallet with one or more fiat and digital currency accounts implemented on a layered distributed ledger as taught by Ricotta in order to allow a customer to use funds instantly and securely.
While Raja in view of Ricotta disclose the invention as claimed, and do note that the stored values are updated after transactions, they do not directly disclose nodes and recording deductions in nodes.
Song discloses a blockchain-based custom currency transaction system comprising a plurality of blockchain nodes configured to establish a peer to peer based blockchain network, distribute and manage blockchain data in which a plurality of blocks are connected in chain form and record, using the blockchain data, transaction data of a custom currency defined based on a cryptocurrency and a service providing server configured to interwork with the blockchain network and provide a transaction service where the transaction data comprise first information about a first currency amount of a customer currency to be transacted and second information about a second current amount of cryptocurrency to be transacted. (See Song Abstract, paras 14-16)
Song further discloses what after points are transferred and converted back into a commodity currency that is dispensed through an ATM that the points are transferred from a user’s electronic wallet to the system electronic wallet [deducted] and recorded in the blockchain data by a plurality of blockchain nodes [new block corresponding to deducted amount} (See Song paras 112-118)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have further modified the systems, methods and computer program products of providing secure cardless cash withdrawals at ATMs as disclosed by Raja in view of Ricotta with the disclosure of updating nodes in P2P network as taught by Song in order to increase transaction security.
Regarding Claim 8, this claim recites substantially similar limitations as those seen in Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Raja discloses the following:
A computer system comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having a set of instructions, that when executed, cause at least one processor to: (See Raja Cl. 20)
Regarding Claim 15, this claim recites substantially similar limitations as those seen in Claims 1 and 8 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Raja discloses the following:
A computer system comprising at least one processor configured to: (See Raja paras 73, Cl. 1)
Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 16, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1, 8 and 15 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Raja discloses the following:
wherein the unique token is an alphanumerical passcode or a QR code. (See Raja paras 45, 65-66 – one-time authorization code may be a single user alphanumeric code or a single use QR code; QR code may be scanned, visual code)
Regarding Claims 3, 10 and 17, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1, 8 and 15 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Raja discloses the following:
wherein the identification of the electronic terminal corresponds to a location of the electronic terminal on a map. (See Raja paras 25-27, 52-53 – the cash authorization system includes a cash machine locator which can receive a request to provide information about cash machines and the user may request a list of cash machines which may be presented as a list of information or a map)
Regarding Claims 4, 11 and 18, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1, 8 and 15 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Raja in view of Ricotta and Song discloses the following:
wherein the at least one processor appends the new block instance in real-time.
In addition to the rejections above as if set forth in full herein, Ricotta and Song disclose updating the blockchain by a new block instance in real time.
Ricotta discloses his invention as to a cryptocurrency wallet that may include one or more fiat currency accounts and one or more digital currency accounts. (See Ricotta para 17) The monetary conversion system is disclosed associated with the crypto wallet implements a layered distributed ledger for the currency wallet. (See Ricotta para 19) As disclosed, a monetary conversion system may exchange funds on the fly (i.e., in real-time) between the digital currency accounts to allow for purchase of virtual or physical goods, services at POS terminals or to obtain fiat cash at an ATM. (See Ricotta paras 18-20 – real time updates) The monetary conversion system converts funds from one or more digital currencies into the fiat currency for use and each currency wallet operates with an independent ledger and maintains a balance as determined interaction with the intelligent balance service. (See Ricotta para 21) Given a set of inputs, constraints and currency values, the intelligent balance service provides a spendable balance which may be represented in fiat currency. (See Ricotta para 21) In an embodiment, a reserve account is used when a person wishes to purchase crypto currency to convert to fiat currency, the value of the reserve account may be a calculated amount and the spending limit may be calculated as the value of the transaction account minus the value of the reserve account – thus producing the amount the user has available for use. (See Ricotta para 22 – amount of cryptocurrency satisfies the request) Settlement services settles transaction across multiple currency wallets and the stored values are balanced and maintained. (See Ricotta paras 22-24 – updates the stored values in accounts) In some instances, funds may take longer than the time available to complete a transaction in which case the settlement service may handle completion of the transaction and update appropriate balances after completion of the transaction. (See Ricotta para 22 – funds are updated across wallets, updated in batches) In an embodiment, distributed reserve services may provide a pool of funds that allow settlement services to complete a transaction in the absence of sufficient funds in a reserve account. (See Ricotta para 22)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have modified the systems, methods and computer program products of providing secure cardless cash withdrawals at ATMs as disclosed by Raja with the cryptocurrency wallet with one or more fiat and digital currency accounts implemented on a layered distributed ledger as taught by Ricotta in order to allow a customer to use funds instantly and securely.
While Raja in view of Ricotta disclose the invention as claimed, and do note that the stored values are updated after transactions, they do not directly disclose nodes, appending a new block and recording deductions in nodes.
Song discloses a blockchain-based custom currency transaction system comprising a plurality of blockchain nodes configured to establish a peer to peer based blockchain network, distribute and manage blockchain data in which a plurality of blocks are connected in chain form and record, using the blockchain data, transaction data of a custom currency defined based on a cryptocurrency and a service providing server configured to interwork with the blockchain network and provide a transaction service where the transaction data comprise first information about a first currency amount of a customer currency to be transacted and second information about a second current amount of cryptocurrency to be transacted. (See Song Abstract, paras 14-16)
Song further discloses what after points are transferred and converted back into a commodity currency that is dispensed through an ATM that the points are transferred from a user’s electronic wallet to the system electronic wallet [deducted] and recorded in the blockchain data by a plurality of blockchain nodes [new block corresponding to deducted amount} (See Song paras 112-118)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have further modified the systems, methods and computer program products of providing secure cardless cash withdrawals at ATMs as disclosed by Raja in view of Ricotta with the disclosure of updating nodes in P2P network as taught by Song in order to increase transaction security.
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 19, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1, 8 and 15 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Raja in view of Ricotta and Song discloses the following:
wherein the at least one processor appends the new block instance in batches using a predefined timeframe.
In addition to the rejections above as if set forth in full herein, Ricotta and Song disclose updating the blockchain by a new block instance using a predefined timeframe.
Ricotta discloses his invention as to a cryptocurrency wallet that may include one or more fiat currency accounts and one or more digital currency accounts. (See Ricotta para 17) The monetary conversion system is disclosed associated with the crypto wallet implements a layered distributed ledger for the currency wallet. (See Ricotta para 19) As disclosed, a monetary conversion system may exchange funds on the fly (i.e., in real-time) between the digital currency accounts to allow for purchase of virtual or physical goods, services at POS terminals or to obtain fiat cash at an ATM. (See Ricotta paras 18-20 – real time updates) The monetary conversion system converts funds from one or more digital currencies into the fiat currency for use and each currency wallet operates with an independent ledger and maintains a balance as determined interaction with the intelligent balance service. (See Ricotta para 21) Given a set of inputs, constraints and currency values, the intelligent balance service provides a spendable balance which may be represented in fiat currency. (See Ricotta para 21) In an embodiment, a reserve account is used when a person wishes to purchase crypto currency to convert to fiat currency, the value of the reserve account may be a calculated amount and the spending limit may be calculated as the value of the transaction account minus the value of the reserve account – thus producing the amount the user has available for use. (See Ricotta para 22 – amount of cryptocurrency satisfies the request) Settlement services settles transaction across multiple currency wallets and the stored values are balanced and maintained. (See Ricotta paras 22-24 – updates the stored values in accounts) In some instances, funds may take longer than the time available to complete a transaction in which case the settlement service may handle completion of the transaction and update appropriate balances after completion of the transaction. (See Ricotta para 22 – funds are updated across wallets, updated in batches [predefined timeframe]) In an embodiment, distributed reserve services may provide a pool of funds that allow settlement services to complete a transaction in the absence of sufficient funds in a reserve account. (See Ricotta para 22)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have modified the systems, methods and computer program products of providing secure cardless cash withdrawals at ATMs as disclosed by Raja with the cryptocurrency wallet with one or more fiat and digital currency accounts implemented on a layered distributed ledger as taught by Ricotta in order to allow a customer to use funds instantly and securely.
While Raja in view of Ricotta disclose the invention as claimed, and do note that the stored values are updated after transactions, they do not directly disclose nodes, appending a new block and recording deductions in nodes.
Song discloses a blockchain-based custom currency transaction system comprising a plurality of blockchain nodes configured to establish a peer to peer based blockchain network, distribute and manage blockchain data in which a plurality of blocks are connected in chain form and record, using the blockchain data, transaction data of a custom currency defined based on a cryptocurrency and a service providing server configured to interwork with the blockchain network and provide a transaction service where the transaction data comprise first information about a first currency amount of a customer currency to be transacted and second information about a second current amount of cryptocurrency to be transacted. (See Song Abstract, paras 14-16)
Song further discloses what after points are transferred and converted back into a commodity currency that is dispensed through an ATM that the points are transferred from a user’s electronic wallet to the system electronic wallet [deducted] and recorded in the blockchain data by a plurality of blockchain nodes [new block corresponding to deducted amount} (See Song paras 112-118)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have further modified the systems, methods and computer program products of providing secure cardless cash withdrawals at ATMs as disclosed by Raja in view of Ricotta with the disclosure of updating nodes in P2P network as taught by Song in order to increase transaction security.
Regarding Claims 6, 13 and 20, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1, 8 and 15 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above and are otherwise disclosed above.
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1 and 8 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further,
wherein the second electronic device is not associated with any account associated with the electronic terminal. (See Raja paras 41-45, 47 – specified another user is specified by user 102A by providing information specifying the other user, not through an account associated with the electronic terminal)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights