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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Examiner recognizes that an English translation of the non-English application was provided on 07/16/2026. However, such translation does not appear to be certified, as required.
Status of Claims
The reply filed 07/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 10-15 and 19-20 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1-9 and 16-18 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 07/16/2026, to claim 2 has overcome the claim objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection 04/28/2026. Therefore, the claim objection to claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 07/16/2026, to claim 1 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection 04/28/2026. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 4-9, and 16-18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 07/16/2026, to claim 17 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection (re transitory signals) previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection 04/28/2026. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection (re transitory signals) of claim 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-9 and 16-18 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks that the claims address a specific technical problem on pgs. 13-14, Examiner recognizes that a technical problem exists, however, the claimed invention is not a technical solution. The specification stating a technical problem does not inherently mean that the claimed invention itself must be a technical solution. The remarks on pgs. 13-14 have failed to point out how the claimed invention contains limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding “voting on the on-chain issuance request based on a predetermined consensus mechanism” on pg. 14, the claimed invention does not claim how the on-chain issuer node “votes.” The claim language reads “wherein the blockchain network votes on the on-chain issuance request…” Even though the on-chain issuer node is located on the blockchain network, this does not necessarily mean the on-chain issuer node participates in the “voting.” Therefore, under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, the on-chain issuer node is not necessarily performing “a technical implementation of a distributed consensus protocol.” Furthermore, the claim language is not specific to the type of consensus mechanism or protocol, and the remark that “voting” is a cryptographic verification process involving computer technical operations is not being claimed. Therefore, under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, simply “voting” is a consensus mechanism, and “voting” is a social activity (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II(C)).
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding “standardized cross-domain communication protocol stack and data adaptation layer improvement” on pgs. 14-15, it is not apparent from the claim language how the claimed invention “defines a unified cross-system message format and transmission protocol,” “breaks down the data interaction barrier between centralized off-chain accounting systems and distributed blockchains,” or is an “improvement to communication layers and data serialization for heterogeneous financial systems.” The remarks have failed to correlate how the claim language itself demonstrates such findings. Merely stating the “improvements” without providing evidence as to how the claim language results in such “improvements” does not constitute sufficient evidence to overcome the patent eligibility rejection.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding “smart contract embedded two-way atomic verification logic based on transaction atomicity guarantees,” the claim language does not claim an “atomic verification mechanism.” The smart contract triggers based on a voting result indicating that the on-chain issuance request is approved, however, the claimed invention does not indicate that the approval process is an “atomic verification mechanism” where “only when off-chain deduction messages pass both signature verification and balance verification” will the smart contract execute digital currency minting. Furthermore, there is no language that suggests “failure at any step automatically triggers a full-process rollback.” The remarks have relied on language that is not being claimed, and therefore, cannot be persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the claims “are not merely implementing an abstract idea on a blockchain” on pgs. 15-16, the claimed invention requiring “specific message structures,” “specific transaction types,” and “specific verification mechanisms,” as currently claimed, is not a technical solution. At most, the “specific message structures” and “specific transaction type” are merely data or content of information that is being transmitted over a network, which is not considered a technical solution. Furthermore, as already discussed above, the claimed invention does not claim a “specific verification mechanism.” It broadly recites “voting” by the blockchain network without specifying the protocol or manner in which the voting is performed such that one would conclude a “specific verification mechanism” is performed. Therefore, one cannot conclude that a broad recitation of “voting” constitutes a technical solution.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks that the “claims improve the functioning of the computer itself” on pg. 16, it is not apparent how the claim language would result in the purported improvements. First, to establish the scope of the claimed invention, the claimed invention is claimed from the perspective of the on-chain issuer node, i.e. the scope of the method claim is limited to the steps performed by the on-chain issuer node. Such interpretation was noted in the Non-Final Rejection 04/28/2026 on pgs. 11-12. The remarks did not address or point out any errors in such interpretation. Therefore, the method steps of the claimed invention are as follows: the on-chain issuer node performs 1) receiving an issuance instruction message, 2) receiving an on-chain issuance request from the on-chain participant node, 3) publishing an issuance application transaction, 4) triggering a smart contract to generate digital currency of the first target amount in a case of a voting result. A method claim is limited by the steps that are required (see MPEP 2143.03, 2111.04). Based on the required method steps of the claimed invention, it is not apparent how “redundant communication,” “duplicate reconciliation processes required for cross system consensus,” and “overall complexity of the systems” are reduced, or how “throughput and real-time performance of cross-border value or data transfer” and “trusted data synchronization” are improved. Merely reciting the improvements disclosed in the specification without correlating how the claim language itself demonstrates such improvements does not constitute sufficient evidence to overcome the patent eligibility rejection.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks that the “Federal Circuit has recognized that claims directed to improving computer network operations and data consistency are not abstract,” the claim language does not improve computer network operations and data consistency. The remarks have not established how the claim language itself “ensures atomicity between off-chain and on-chain operations.” As currently claimed, the method steps performed by the on-chain issuer node are 1) receiving an issuance instruction message, 2) receiving an on-chain issuance request from the on-chain participant node, 3) publishing an issuance application transaction, 4) triggering a smart contract to generate digital currency of the first target amount in a case of a voting result. It is not apparent from these required method steps how data consistency is improved.
The remarks have repeatedly failed to clearly correlate how the claim language leads to the improvements disclosed in the instant specification. Merely restating the purported technical improvements without any further explanation as to how they relate to the current claim language is not substantive evidence other than summarizing the specification. Therefore, claims 1-9 and 16-18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant's arguments, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-9 and 16-18 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks that “Ravinathan does not disclose the claimed invention’s core mechanism” on pg. 17, the claimed invention does not claim a “mechanism where an off-chain local payment system or off-chain local digital currency system deducts funds and then sends a deduction success instruction that triggers the on-chain issuer node to generate digital currency.” The claimed invention claims an on-chain issuer node that receives an issuance instruction message and triggers a smart contract to generate digital currency. Furthermore, merely stating that the prior art does not disclose the limitations without any evidence cannot be persuasive. Please see below for the mapping of the limitations to the prior art.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the “deduction success instruction” on pg. 18, the content of the “deduction success instruction” does not impact what the on-chain issuer node does. The language directed to “deducting currency of the first target amount” is related to what happens in the off-chain local payment system, not what the on-chain issuer node does. Therefore, it cannot directly affect the method steps of the on-chain issuer if the step of “deducting” is not performed by the on-chain issuer node. Furthermore, the content of the “deduction success instruction” does not influence how the on-chain issuer receives the issuance instruction message or sends a deduction instruction (in claims 2-3).
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding “no motivation to combine Ravinathan with Gaur” on pgs. 18-19, the claimed invention is not claiming a particular architecture or system that “bridges off-chain deduction with on-chain generation.” Both Ravinathan et al. U.S. 2021/0406887 and Gaur et al. U.S. 2021/0350458 are related to blockchain payments, which is the same field as the instant application. The Examiner has already previously presented how each of the prior art discloses the claimed method steps and a rationale to combine to arrive at the claimed method steps. The remarks appear to inappropriately rely on the assumption that the claimed invention is directed to a particular architecture/structure of a system, instead of a series of steps. Therefore, the remarks regarding the different “systems” of each of the prior art are not relevant to what is being claimed. Furthermore, merely concluding that the combination would not yield predictable results without providing any evidence against the particular prior art citations, other than a summary of each prior art, does not constitute substantive evidence to overcome the prior art rejections.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks against Gaur on pg. 19, the claimed invention does not claim generating digital currency in response to an issuance instruction message with a deduction success instruction. The digital currency is generated in response to triggering of a smart contract. Even so, such limitations were rejected by Ravinathan, not Gaur. Ravinathan discloses the issuer processing server submitting a transaction including a transaction amount to a node [0035], i.e. receiving issuance instruction message, and further providing the transaction amount for settlement after submitting the transaction [0038], Fig. 3B. Providing the transaction amount is analogous to generating digital currency. The remarks did not address the particular citations in Ravinathan that disclose the limitations at issue. Therefore, the remarks cannot be persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-“the on-chain participant node” on pg. 2, line 18 should be “an on-chain participant node”
-“an on-chain participant node” on pg. 3, line 8 should be “the on-chain participant node”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 and 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9, 16, and 18 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. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
A transaction processing method, applied to an on-chain issuer node in a cross-border transaction system, wherein the on-chain issuer node is located on a blockchain network comprised in the cross-border transaction system, the blockchain network comprises a plurality of node computers which are connected to each other through communication interfaces, at least one of the plurality of node computers comprised in the blockchain network is configured as an on-chain issuer computer, the on-chain issuer computer comprises a processor and a communication interface, and the cross-border transaction system performs cross-border transaction business through the blockchain network, wherein the method comprises:
receiving an issuance instruction message from an off-chain issuer computer in an off-chain transaction system through the communication interface, wherein the off-chain transaction system comprises at least one of an off-chain local payment system and an off-chain local digital currency system, the off-chain transaction system comprises at least one off-chain issuer computer, the off-chain local payment system manages off-chain local bank accounts, the off-chain local digital currency system manages off-chain digital currency wallets, and the issuance instruction message comprises an off-chain participant identifier, a first target amount and a deduction success instruction;
receiving an on-chain issuance request from the on-chain participant node through the blockchain network, wherein the on-chain issuance request comprises a digital currency wallet identifier of the on-chain participant node and the first target amount, and the on-chain issuance request is used to request issuing the digital currency of the first target amount in the blockchain network;
publishing, in response to the on-chain issuance request, an issuance application transaction in the blockchain network via a contract interface of a blockchain, wherein the blockchain network votes on the on-chain issuance request based on a predetermined consensus mechanism, and the issuance application transaction comprises a digital signature of the on-chain issuer node; and
triggering a smart contract, in a case of a voting result indicating that the on-chain issuance request is approved, to generate digital currency of the first target amount in a digital currency wallet of an on-chain participant node that corresponds to the off-chain participant identifier and is located on the blockchain network;
wherein in a case that the issuance instruction message is sent by the off-chain local payment system, the deduction success instruction indicates deducting currency of the first target amount from a local bank account of an off-chain participant in the off-chain local payment system; and in a case that the issuance instruction message is sent by the off-chain local digital currency system, the deduction success instruction indicates deducting currency of the first target amount from a local digital currency wallet of the off-chain participant in the off-chain local digital currency system.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, A-F recite limitations that are reasonably categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the bolded claimed limitations of A-C and E-F can be grouped as fundamental economic principles or practices. Performing a transaction by transferring to and/or deducting a currency amount from an account or wallet is a fundamental economic practice. The bolded claimed limitations of D can be grouped as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Voting on a request is a social activity. Therefore, limitations A-F recite abstract ideas that fall under multiple sub-groupings.
Claim 1 recites 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.
In A and C-E, reciting the “blockchain network” and “blockchain” is general usage of a data structure. When the additional element is considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, claim 1 as a whole amounts to no more than mere steps to implement an abstract idea on a data structure. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In E, the additional element “trigger a smart contract” has been recited at a high-level generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). When the additional element is considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, claim 1 as a whole amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
All other additional elements not in bold above 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, claim 1 amounts 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 MPEP 2106.05(f). 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.
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. 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.
Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-9 and 18 do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 16 recites “a transaction processing device,” “a processor,” and “a communication interface, wherein the communication interface is coupled to the processor, and the processor is configured to execute a computer program or instructions” as additional elements. These elements 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, claim 16 amounts 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 MPEP 2106.05(f). 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.
Dependent claim 17 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “wherein computer-executable instructions stored in the computer-readable storage medium, when executed by a processor of an electronic device,” and “the electronic device” as additional elements. These elements 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, claim 17 amounts 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 MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 1-9 and 16-18 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.
Claim 1-6, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravinathan et al. U.S. 2021/0406887 (herein as “Ravinathan”) in view of Gaur et al. U.S. 2021/0350458 (herein as “Gaur”).
Re Claim 1, Ravinathan discloses a transaction processing method, applied to an on-chain issuer node in a cross-border transaction system, wherein the on-chain issuer node is located on a blockchain network comprised in the cross-border transaction system, the blockchain network comprises a plurality of node computers which are connected to each other through communication interfaces [0029], at least one of the plurality of node computers comprised in the blockchain network is configured as an on-chain issuer computer, the on-chain issuer computer comprises a processor and a communication interface Fig. 5, and the cross-border transaction system performs cross-border transaction business through the blockchain network (Examiner notes this is intended use, therefore, no patentable weight is given), wherein the method comprises:
receiving an issuance instruction message from an off-chain issuer computer in an off-chain transaction system through the communication interface ([0035] – “the issuer processing server 102 may submit a blockchain transaction to a node in the blockchain network,” i.e. the node receives the blockchain transaction, the issuer processing server 102 is analogous to the off-chain issuer computer and a node is analogous to the on-chain issuer node, Fig. 5 – communications interface 524),
The following limitations italicized are not given patentable weight for the following reasons: 1) the claimed method is directed to “a transaction processing method, applied to an on-chain issuer node in a cross-border transaction system,” this is interpreted to mean that the scope of the claimed invention encompasses the method steps performed by the on-chain issuer node, and not the structure and purpose of the off-chain transaction system or off-chain issuer computer, 2) the following limitations italicized do not positively recite any method steps. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed MPEP 2111.04. Therefore, the limitations italicized cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided below.
wherein the off-chain transaction system comprises at least one of an off-chain local payment system (Fig. 1 – at least the issuer processing server 102, payment network 112, acquiring processing server 110, and point of sale device 108 are collectively analogous to the off-chain local payment system) and an off-chain local digital currency system, the off-chain transaction system comprises at least one off-chain issuer computer Fig. 1 – issuer processing server 102, the off-chain local payment system manages off-chain local bank accounts [0022] – “the issuing processing server 102 may issue a transaction account to a consumer 104, the off-chain local digital currency system manages off-chain digital currency wallets, and the issuance instruction message comprises an off-chain participant identifier, a first target amount and a deduction success instruction ([0035] – “The blockchain transaction may include the cryptocurrency amount…and a digital signature generated using the private key of the blockchain wallet from which payment is being made,” the blockchain wallet can be associated with the consumer’s transaction account or the issuer processing server 102, both are considered “off-chain” participants. [0054] – the blockchain transaction may also include the exchange rate, which is analogous to a deduction success instruction because it “instructs” how much of a fiat transaction amount should be debited/deducted based on the exchange rate between cryptocurrency and fiat currency);
[…]
[…] in a case of a voting result indicating that the on-chain issuance request is approved [0034] – “The new block may be validated by other nodes in the blockchain network 116,” to generate digital currency of the first target amount in a digital currency wallet of an on-chain participant node that corresponds to the off-chain participant identifier and is located on the blockchain network ([0038] – “Settlement may include providing the issuer processing server 102 with the fiat transaction amount based on the cryptocurrency payment made to the exchange server 114,” the cryptocurrency payment made is analogous to generating digital currency of the first target amount, [0035] – “payment to a blockchain wallet of the exchange server 114,” i.e. a digital currency wallet of an on-chain participant node, [0029] – “the exchange server 114 may be a blockchain node in the associated blockchain network 116,” [0038] – the settlement made corresponds to the consumer involved in the transaction, i.e. corresponds to the off-chain participant identifier);
wherein in a case that the issuance instruction message is sent by the off-chain local payment system, the deduction success instruction indicates deducting currency of the first target amount from a local bank account of an off-chain participant in the off-chain local payment system ([0038] – “debit the consumer’s fiat transaction account for the appropriate fiat transaction amount.” Examiner notes that this limitation is not required in a case where the message is sent by the off-chain local digital currency system); and in a case that the issuance instruction message is sent by the off-chain local digital currency system, the deduction success instruction indicates deducting currency of the first target amount from a local digital currency wallet of the off-chain participant in the off-chain local digital currency system ([0038] – “In cases where the cryptocurrency payment was made directly from a blockchain wallet of the consumer 104, the consumer’s account may accurately reflect the transaction as a result of the cryptocurrency payment.” Examiner notes that this limitation is not required in a case where the message is sent by the off-chain local payment system. However, prior art is provided).
Examiner notes the content of the deduction success instruction is nonfunctional descriptive language MPEP 2111.05. The content of the deduction success instruction does not meaningfully limit how the issuance instruction message is received. Therefore, the content of the deduction success instruction cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided above.
However, Ravinathan does not expressly disclose
receiving an on-chain issuance request from the on-chain participant node through the blockchain network, wherein the on-chain issuance request comprises a digital currency wallet identifier of the on-chain participant node and the first target amount, and the on-chain issuance request is used to request issuing the digital currency of the first target amount in the blockchain network;
publishing, in response to the on-chain issuance request, an issuance application transaction in the blockchain network via a contract interface of a blockchain, wherein the blockchain network votes on the on-chain issuance request based on a predetermined consensus mechanism, and the issuance application transaction comprises a digital signature of the on-chain issuer node; and
triggering a smart contract.
Gaur discloses a blockchain settlement network. Specifically, Gaur discloses
receiving an on-chain issuance request from the on-chain participant node through the blockchain network ([0087] – “the originator 402 requests initiation of the clearance and settlement through the host system 406,” the host system is the blockchain, see Fig. 1A 110), wherein the on-chain issuance request comprises a digital currency wallet identifier of the on-chain participant node and the first target amount [0094], and the on-chain issuance request is used to request issuing the digital currency of the first target amount in the blockchain network [0044] – “choose which value to be used during the on-chain settlement”; and
publishing, in response to the on-chain issuance request [0069] – “client node 260 transmitting a transaction proposal 291 to an endorsing peer node 281,” Fig. 2A, an issuance application transaction in the blockchain network via a contract interface of a blockchain ([0069] – “broadcasts it (i.e. transaction payload) to an ordering service node…then delivers ordered transactions as blocks to all peers,” [0065] – “via one or more interfaces exposed,” via a contract interface), wherein the blockchain network votes on the on-chain issuance request based on a predetermined consensus mechanism [0031] – “the peers may execute a consensus protocol to validate blockchain storage transactions,” and the issuance application transaction comprises a digital signature of the on-chain issuer node [0069] – “The endorsing peer 281 may verify the client signature”; and
triggering a smart contract ([0066] – “A transaction is an execution of the smart contract code which can be performed in response to conditions associated with the smart contract being satisfied,” [0102] – “an asset transfer session or a process or procedure that is driven by a smart contract,” i.e. trigger a smart contract to generate digital currency).
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 Ravinathan’s method and system for merchant acceptance of cryptocurrency via payment rails with the teachings of receiving an on-chain request, publishing a transaction in the blockchain, voting on a request based on a predetermined consensus mechanism, and triggering a smart contract in Gaur. One would be motivated to make this combination to ensure validity and integrity of the transactions Gaur, [0031], [0046], while using smart contracts that are trusted distributed applications to leverage tamper-proof properties of blockchain to enforce authorization and access requirements and usage of the ledger Gaur, [0032], [0065].
Re Claim 2, Ravinathan in view of Gaur teach the transaction processing method according to claim 1, and Ravinathan in view of Gaur further teach wherein the method further comprises:
sending, by the on-chain issuer node, a deduction instruction to the off-chain issuer (Gaur, [0090] – “the originator 402 may transmit a settlement request message 450,” [0091] – “the host system may forward the off-chain settlement notification to the receiver 404”), wherein the deduction instruction indicates deducting a currency of the first target amount from the local bank account or the local digital currency wallet of the off-chain participant (Gaur, Fig. 4C – Amount and Account IDs, thereby indicating that a particular amount is to be deducted from a sender account for settlement).
Examiner notes the content of the deduction instruction is nonfunctional descriptive language MPEP 2111.05. The content of the deduction instruction does not meaningfully limit how the deduction instruction is sent. Therefore, the content of the deduction instruction cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided above.
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 Ravinathan’s method and system for merchant acceptance of cryptocurrency via payment rails with the teachings of receiving an on-chain issuance request and sending a deduction instruction in Gaur. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 3, Ravinathan in view of Gaur teach the transaction processing method according to claim 2, and Ravinathan in view of Gaur further teach wherein the sending, by the on-chain issuer node, a deduction instruction to the off-chain issuer comprises:
sending, by the on-chain issuer node, the deduction instruction to the off-chain issuer
after the on-chain issuance request is successfully verified Gaur, [0088] – “the host system 406 may verify the content of the request from the originator 402 and transfer the request to the receiver 404”;
wherein the on-chain issuance request is successfully verified by: determining that an account status of the on-chain participant node is normal, and/or determining that the first target amount is less than or equal to a remaining issuance amount of the on-chain participant node in the on-chain issuer node Ravinathan, [0047] – “determine approval or denial of a payment transaction, such as based on credit and balance information.”
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 Ravinathan’s method and system for merchant acceptance of cryptocurrency via payment rails with the teachings of sending a deduction instruction after the on-chain issuance request is successfully verified in Gaur. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 4, Ravinathan in view of Gaur teach the transaction processing method according to claim 1, and Ravinathan in view of Gaur further teach wherein the issuance instruction message is generated by the off-chain issuer after receiving an off-chain issuance request from the off-chain participant Ravinathan, [0052] – “authorization request,” the off-chain issuance request comprises the off-chain participant identifier and the first target amount Ravinathan, [0052] – “may include transaction account number, transaction amount,” and the off-chain issuance request is used to request issuing the digital currency of the first target amount in the blockchain network Ravinathan, [0057] – “payment of the cryptocurrency amount,” Fig. 4, 408.
Examiner notes the content of the off-chain issuance request is nonfunctional descriptive language MPEP 2111.05. The content of the off-chain issuance request does not meaningfully limit how the instruction message is generated. Therefore, the content of the off-chain issuance request cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided above.
Re Claim 5, Ravinathan in view of Gaur teach the transaction processing method according to claim 1, and Ravinathan in view of Gaur further teach wherein the deducting currency of the first target amount from a local bank account of an off-chain participant in the off-chain local payment system comprises:
debiting the first target amount in the local bank account of the off-chain participant and crediting the first target amount in a margin account of the off-chain issuer in the off-chain local payment system Ravinathan, [0038] – “debit the consumer’s fiat transaction account for the appropriate fiat transaction amount,” “credit the merchant’s transaction account accordingly.”
Re Claim 6, Ravinathan in view of Gaur teach the transaction processing method according to claim 1, and Ravinathan in view of Gaur further teach wherein the deducting currency of the first target amount from a local digital currency wallet of the off-chain participant in the off-chain local digital currency system comprises:
deducting the digital currency of the first target amount from the local digital currency wallet of the off-chain participant in the off-chain local digital currency system Ravinathan, [0038] – “In cases where the cryptocurrency payment was made directly from a blockchain wallet of the consumer 104, the consumer’s account may accurately reflect the transaction as a result of the cryptocurrency payment.”
Re Claim 16, it is the device claim of method claim 1. Ravinathan further discloses a processor and communications interface in Fig. 5, 504, 524, respectively. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons above.
Re Claim 17, it is the computer-readable storage medium of method claim 1. Ravinathan further discloses implementation of the disclosure via non-transitory computer readable media [0063]. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 7-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravinathan et al. U.S. 2021/0406887 (herein as “Ravinathan”) in view of Gaur et al. U.S. 2021/0350458 (herein as “Gaur”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. - English machine translation of CN112036849 (herein as “Huang”).
Re Claim 7, Ravinathan in view of Gaur teach the transaction processing method according to claim 1, however, Ravinathan in view of Gaur do not explicitly teach further comprising:
receiving an on-chain cancellation request message from the on-chain participant node, wherein the on-chain cancellation request message comprises an identifier of the on-chain participant node and a second target amount; and
deducting digital currency of the second target amount from the digital currency wallet of the on-chain participant node, and sending a currency refund message to the off-chain participant through the off-chain issuer in the off-chain transaction system, wherein the currency refund message comprises the off-chain participant identifier and the second target amount, and the currency refund message indicates adding currency of the second target amount to the local bank account or the local digital currency wallet of the off-chain participant.
Huang discloses a cross-border payment system and method based on distributed account book technology. Specifically, Huang discloses
receiving an on-chain cancellation request message from the on-chain participant node pg. 10, 5.4 – “receiving the transaction of canceling or returning goods by the cross-border payment system node,” wherein the on-chain cancellation request message comprises an identifier of the on-chain participant node and a second target amount (pg. 10, 5.4 – “matching the amount of the canceling or returning goods with the account currency string on the overseas acquiring system node chain,” thereby suggesting a target amount is in the received transaction); and
deducting digital currency of the second target amount from the digital currency wallet of the on-chain participant node pg. 10, 5.7 – “the DCEP digital wallet system node receives the revocation or return result message, competes the transfer of the coin string,” and sending a currency refund message to the off-chain participant through the off-chain issuer in the off-chain transaction system pg. 10, 5.7 – “sends a revocation or return notice to the user wallet module,” wherein the currency refund message comprises the off-chain participant identifier and the second target amount, and the currency refund message indicates adding currency of the second target amount to the local bank account or the local digital currency wallet of the off-chain participant.
Examiner notes the content of the currency refund message and the identifier of the on-chain participant node are nonfunctional descriptive language MPEP 2111.05. The content of the currency refund message and the identifier of the on-chain participant node do not meaningfully limit how the messages are received/sent, and/or how the digital currency is deducted. Therefore, the content of the currency refund message and the identifier of the on-chain participant node cannot be given patentable weight.
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 Ravinathan in view of Gaur’s method and system for merchant acceptance of cryptocurrency via payment rails with the teachings of cross-border transaction cancellation or return in Huang. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable a reliable and efficient cancellation or return process for cross-border transactions Huang, pg. 10, 5th paragraph.
Re Claim 8, Ravinathan in view of Gaur teach the transaction processing method according to claim 1, however, Ravinathan in view of Gaur do not explicitly teach further comprising:
receiving an off-chain cancellation instruction message from the off-chain issuer, wherein the off-chain cancellation instruction message comprises a digital currency wallet identifier of the on-chain participant node and a second target amount, the off-chain cancellation instruction message is generated by the off-chain issuer based on an off-chain cancellation request message sent by the off-chain participant to the off-chain issuer; and
deducting digital currency of the second target amount from the digital currency wallet of the on-chain participant node, and sending a currency refund message to the off-chain participant through the off-chain issuer in the off-chain transaction system, wherein the currency refund message comprises the off-chain participant identifier and the second target amount, and the currency refund message indicates adding currency of the second target amount to the local bank account or the local digital currency wallet of the off-chain participant.
Huang discloses a cross-border payment system and method based on distributed account book technology. Specifically, Huang discloses
Examiner notes that the following limitations italicized are not given patentable weight for the following reasons: the following limitations italicized do not positively recite any method steps. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed MPEP 2111.04. Therefore, the limitations italicized cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided below.
receiving an off-chain cancellation instruction message from the off-chain issuer (pg. 9, 5.2 – “the overseas acquiring system node generates the transaction information of the revocation or return goods,” thereby suggesting it received the cancellation or goods return request from the overseas order receiving system node, see 5.2), wherein the off-chain cancellation instruction message comprises a digital currency wallet identifier of the on-chain participant node and a second target amount pg. 9-10, 5.3-5.4 – “matching the amount of the canceling or returning goods with the account currency string on the overseas acquiring system node chain,” the off-chain cancellation instruction message is generated by the off-chain issuer based on an off-chain cancellation request message sent by the off-chain participant to the off-chain issuer (pg. 9, 5.1 – “the user wallet module initiates the original order cancellation or return transaction,” 5.2 – “the overseas order receiving system node receives the original order cancellation or goods,” 5.3 – the overseas acquiring system node generates the transaction information of the revocation or return goods, thereby suggesting the overseas order receiving system node generates the request message to send to the overseas acquiring system node, the user wallet module is analogous to the off-chain participant, and the overseas order receiving system node is analogous to the off-chain issuer); and
deducting digital currency of the second target amount from the digital currency wallet of the on-chain participant node pg. 10, 5.7 – “the DCEP digital wallet system node receives the revocation or return result message, competes the transfer of the coin string,” and sending a currency refund message to the off-chain participant through the off-chain issuer in the off-chain transaction system pg. 10, 5.7 – “sends a revocation or return notice to the user wallet module,” wherein the currency refund message comprises the off-chain participant identifier and the second target amount, and the currency refund message indicates adding currency of the second target amount to the local bank account or the local digital currency wallet of the off-chain participant.
Examiner notes the content of the currency refund message and the identifier of the on-chain participant node are nonfunctional descriptive language MPEP 2111.05. The content of the currency refund message and the identifier of the on-chain participant node do not meaningfully limit how the messages are received/sent, and/or how the digital currency is deducted. Therefore, the content of the currency refund message and the identifier of the on-chain participant node cannot be given patentable weight.
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 Ravinathan in view of Gaur’s method and system for merchant acceptance of cryptocurrency via payment rails with the teachings of cross-border transaction cancellation or return in Huang. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable a reliable and efficient cancellation or return process for cross-border transactions Huang, pg. 10, 5th paragraph.
Re Claim 9, Ravinathan in view of Gaur and Huang teach the transaction processing method according to claim 7, and Ravinathan in view of Gaur and Huang further teach wherein the adding currency of the second target amount to the local bank account or the local digital currency wallet of the off-chain participant comprises:
crediting the second target amount in the local bank account of the off-chain participant and debiting the second target amount in a margin account of the off-chain issuer in the off-chain local payment system; or
adding the digital currency of the second target amount to the local digital currency wallet of the off-chain participant in the off-chain local digital currency system Huang, pg. 9, 4.5 – “transfers the amount of the digital money to the RMB balance account of the DCEP digital wallet system.”
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 Ravinathan in view of Gaur’s method and system for merchant acceptance of cryptocurrency via payment rails with the teachings of cross-border transaction refunds in Huang. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable a real-time refunds process for cross-border transactions Huang, pg. 9, 7th paragraph.
Re Claim 18, Ravinathan in view of Gaur and Huang teach the transaction processing method according to claim 8, and Ravinathan in view of Gaur and Huang further teach wherein the adding currency of the second target amount to the local bank account or the local digital currency wallet of the off-chain participant comprises:
crediting the second target amount in the local bank account of the off-chain participant and debiting the second target amount in a margin account of the off-chain issuer in the off-chain local payment system; or
adding the digital currency of the second target amount to the local digital currency wallet of the off-chain participant in the off-chain local digital currency system Huang, pg. 9, 4.5 – “transfers the amount of the digital money to the RMB balance account of the DCEP digital wallet system.”
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 Ravinathan in view of Gaur’s method and system for merchant acceptance of cryptocurrency via payment rails with the teachings of cross-border transaction refunds in Huang. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable a real-time refunds process for cross-border transactions Huang, pg. 9, 7th paragraph.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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