DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 10/2102025 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits. Claims 2-21 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
This application is a CON of 18/439,661 02/12/2024 PAT 12,456,104, which claims benefit of 63/484,317 02/10/2023.
The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/28/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner.
Double Patenting Rejection
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 time wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type 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 Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel/,422 F.2d 438,164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and, 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The claims of the instant application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of patent US 12,361,488. The conflicting claims are nearly identical, with the US 12,361,488 patent claims being narrower, which makes the two sets of claims not patentably distinct from each other, as shown by the claim-by-claim comparison in the table here below.
Instant Application
Language from US 12,456,104
Claims 2, 9, 15. A computer-implemented method performed by a swap platform, the computer- implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a user device of a user, an order to swap a starting amount of a source asset in exchange for a destination asset;
selecting a subset of exchanges from a data source of exchanges based on the source asset and the destination asset;
generating a graph based on a subset of intermediate assets and the subset of exchanges,
wherein the graph is a data structure comprising: a plurality of nodes comprising: a source node representing the source asset; a destination node representing the destination asset; and a plurality of intermediate nodes presenting the subset of intermediate assets; and a plurality of edges linking the plurality of nodes,
wherein each edge links a pair of nodes and represents a transfer from a first asset represented by a first node of the pair to a second asset represented by a second node of the pair;
evaluating a set of transfer paths,
wherein each transfer path exchanges a portion of the starting amount of the source asset for an amount of the destination asset;
determining, using dynamic programming, a multi-route transfer comprising a combination of non-conflicting transfer paths that optimize a total amount of destination asset exchanged for the starting amount of the source asset after transaction fees,
wherein the combination of non-conflicting transfer paths are selected from the set of transfer paths,
wherein dynamic programming comprises reducing a process into subprocesses in a recursive manner and efficiently reusing calculated results of the subprocesses;
sending, to the user device, data indicating the multi-route transfer; and
causing execution of the multi-route transfer.
Claims 1, 8, 14. A computer-implemented method performed by a swap platform, the method comprising:
receiving, from a user device of a user, an order to swap a starting amount of a source asset in exchange for a destination asset;
selecting a subset of intermediate assets from a datasource of assets based on asset data;
selecting a subset of exchanges from a datasource of exchanges based on the source asset, the destination asset, and exchange data;
generating a graph based on the subset of intermediate assets and the subset of exchanges, wherein the graph is a data structure comprising:
a plurality of nodes comprising: a source node representing the source asset; a destination node representing the destination asset; and
a plurality of intermediate nodes presenting the subset of intermediate assets;
a plurality of directed edges linking the plurality of nodes, wherein each edge links a pair of nodes and represents a transfer from a first asset represented by a first node of the pair to a second asset represented by a second node of the pair;
traversing the graph along every unique path from the source node to the destination node to evaluate a set of transfer paths, wherein each transfer path exchanges a portion of the starting amount of the source asset for an amount of the destination asset;
ranking (reads on evaluating) the set of transfer paths based on the respective amount of destination asset received after transaction fees by each transfer path in the set of transfer paths;
determining a multi-route transfer comprising a combination of non-conflicting transfer paths that optimize a total amount of destination asset exchanged for the starting amount of the source asset after transaction fees, wherein the combination of non-conflicting transfer paths are selected from the set of transfer paths based on the ranking;
sending, to the user device, data indicating the multi-route transfer and the combination of transfer paths;
receiving (“sending is implicit”), from the user device, a user input to execute the multi-route transfer; and
executing the multi-route transfer.
Claims 3, 10, 16. The computer-implemented method of claims 2, 9, 15,
wherein the subset of intermediate assets is selected from a datastore of assets based on the source asset and the destination asset indicated in the order.
Claims 2, 9, 15. The computer-implemented method of Claims 1, 8, 14,
wherein the subset of intermediate assets is selected from the datastore of assets based on the source asset and the destination asset indicated in the order.
Claims 4, 11, 17. The computer-implemented method of claims 2, 9, 15,
wherein at least one transfer path in the set of transfer paths comprises a direct transfer.
Claims 3, 10, 16. The computer-implemented method of Claims 1, 8, 14,
wherein at least one transfer path in the set of transfer paths comprises a direct transfer.
Claims 5, 12, 18. The computer-implemented method of claims 2, 9, 15,
wherein at least one transfer path in the set of transfer paths comprises an intermediate transfer.
Claims 4, 11, 17. The computer-implemented method of Claims 1, 8, 14,
wherein at least one transfer path in the set of transfer paths comprises an intermediate transfer.
Claims 6, 13, 19. The computer-implemented method of claims 2, 9, 15,
wherein the set of transfer paths is determined using a machine learning model.
Claims 7, 14, 29. The computer-implemented method of claims 2, 9, 15,
wherein a number of intermediate nodes in the plurality of intermediate nodes is bound by a max number.
Claims 6, 13, 19. The computer-implemented method of Claims 1, 8, 14,
wherein the number of intermediate nodes in the plurality of intermediate nodes is bound by a max number.
Claims 8, 21. The computer-implemented method of claims 2, 15,
wherein the source asset and the destination asset are both cryptocurrency tokens.
Claims 7, 20. The computer-implemented method of Claims 1, 14,
wherein the source asset and the destination asset are both cryptocurrency tokens.
Claims 2, 9, 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 14 of US 12,456,104 (‘104 Patent), in view of Demuth et al (US 2013/0268251)
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 15 – claims 1, 8, 14 of ‘104 Patent disclose the limitations of claims 2, 9, 15. The ‘104 Patent does not specifically disclose, however, Demuth discloses:
wherein dynamic programming comprises reducing a process into subprocesses in a recursive manner and efficiently reusing calculated results of the subprocesses; (see at least [0003]-[0005] processes as a combination of sub-processes; [0030] combining sub-processes; [0035] reusing results}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the ‘104 Patent to include the elements of Demuth. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to increase transfer efficiency. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, ‘104 Patent evidently discloses dynamic multi-path transfer. Demuth is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of recursive reduction of a process in subprocesses in the same or similar context. Since both dynamic multi-path transfer, as well as of recursive reduction of a process in subprocesses are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by ‘104 Patent, as well as Demuth would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over ‘104 Patent / Demuth.
Claims 6, 13, 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 14 of US 12,456,104 (‘104 Patent), in view of Kawase (US 2025/0167711)
Regarding Claims 6, 13, 19 – claims 6, 13, 19 of ‘104 Patent and Demuth et al (US 2013/0268251) discloses the limitations of claims 2, 9, 15, from which claims 6, 13, 19 depend. ‘104 Patent and Demuth does not specifically disclose, however, Kawase discloses:
wherein the set of transfer paths is determined using a machine learning model (see at least [0032]-[0033] set of transfer paths; [0109] machine learning}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the ‘‘104 Patent to include the elements of Kawase. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve the calculation efficiency. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, ‘104 Patent evidently discloses dynamic multi-path transfer. Kawase is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using machine learning to determine transfer path in the same or similar context. Since both dynamic multi-path transfer, as well as using machine learning to determine transfer path are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by ‘104 Patent, as well as Kawase would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over ‘104 Patent / Kawase.
This is a non-provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have been in fact patented.
Examiner Remarks
The comprehensive search, included domestic and foreign patents search, “more like this” search, similarity search and ip.com NPL search (all attached to this office action). It yielded no relevant prior art. The filed IDS has been considered as well.
Based on the eligibility results of the analysis for parent US 12,361,488, it is concluded that the set of claims of the instant application is eligible as well.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20080264043 A1 Kawakita; Shinichiro et al. EXHAUST EMISSION CONTROL DEVICE An exhaust emission control device has an additive valve and a control unit to decrease nitrogen oxides contained in an exhaust gas by means of a reducing agent. The control unit sets a valve opening period of time and a valve closing period of time alternately elapsing in a repetition cycle. The control unit controls the valve to discharge the agent into the exhaust gas during each valve opening period and to stop discharging the agent during each valve closing period. The control unit sets the valve opening period to be shortened as a flow rate of the exhaust gas is lowered, so that a penetration force of the reducing agent is appropriately set. The control unit sets the repetition cycle at a value depending on the flow rate of the nitrogen oxides to sufficiently deoxidize the nitrogen oxides by means of the agent.
US 20140289163 A1 Michaud; Robert et al. Method and Computer Program for Minimizing Trading Costs Subject to a Probability Criterion of Optimality Acceptability Embodiments model a series of partial trades on an investment portfolio to reduce the optimality discrepancy relative to a target optimal portfolio, and determine whether a partially rebalanced portfolio along the trading path is within a predefined threshold of statistical optimality relative to the target optimal portfolio. Certain embodiments maximize the impact of partial rebalancing of a portfolio by maximizing reduction of an optimality discrepancy while minimizing the trade cost function along the trading path from the initial portfolio toward the target optimal portfolio.
US 20220126438 A1 Cristache; Lucian Robotic Cart A robotic cart includes a bin, at least one mobile device holder and at least one robotic arm to manipulate items in or out of the bin. The mobile device holder secures a user mobile device which is communicatively coupled with the robotic cart. The robotic cart performs item manipulations based on data communicated from the coupled user device
US 20030200439 A1 Moskowitz, Scott A. Methods, systems and devices for packet watermarking and efficient provisioning of bandwidth Disclosed herein are methods and systems for transmitting streams of data. In one embodiment, a method comprises the steps of: receiving a stream of data; organizing the stream of data into a plurality of packets; generating a packet watermark associated with the stream of data; combining the packet watermark with each of the plurality of packets to form watermarked packets; and transmitting at least one of the watermarked packets across a network. The present invention also relates to: receiving at least one packet that has been transmitted across a network; analyzing at least one packet for a watermark; and authenticating the at least one packet using at least a portion of the watermark. The present invention also relates to generating packet watermarks and packet watermark keys.
US 20210352142 A1 Jayaram; Arjun et al. RECONCILIATION OF DATA STORED ON PERMISSIONED DATABASE STORAGE ACROSS INDEPENDENT COMPUTING NODES Reconciliation and subscription-model permissions of data stored across independent ledger instances of a database. A system includes a resource manager coupled to a plurality of client accounts. The system includes an execution platform and a shared permissioned ledger comprising independent processing and storage nodes for executing data operations for the plurality of client accounts. The resource manager defines a settlement group comprising one or more client accounts and authenticates an observer node associated with the settlement group. The resource manager assigns ingested data an encryption level on a key hierarchy based on content of the ingested data.
US 12277536 B2 Dominique; Jason et al. System and method for trust-minimized real-time value-exchange and liquidity replenishment What is disclosed is a method for trust-minimized value-exchange between a source and a destination token. An off-chain trusted API (OCTAPI) is connected to a first and a second interchain router (ICR); and a first and a second smart contract (SC). The first and second SCs are associated with source and destination chains, and comprise a first and a second vault, respectively. The first ICR is associated with the first SC and connected to a source decentralized exchange (DEX). The second ICR is associated with the second SC and connected to a destination DEX. When a transaction order is received, the OCTAPI initiates a debit swap via the first ICR and source DEX. When the OCTAPI determines the debit swap is being validated, the OCTAPI initiates a credit swap via the second ICR and destination DEX. At least some part of the debit swap and credit swap occur in parallel.
US 20230198886 A1 UR; Shmuel et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPTIMIZING ROUTING OF TRANSACTIONS OVER A COMPUTER NETWORK A system and a method of optimizing an organizational structure (OS) of an organization may include: receiving one or more data elements pertaining to the OS; receiving a value of one or more transaction parameters pertaining to one or more transactions conducted over one or more nodes of a first computer network; perturbating a value of one or more OS elements; creating a simulated computer network based on the one or more perturbated values; for each network of the first computer network and the simulated computer network, calculating a value of at least one OS performance parameter; and generating, based on the calculation, a suggestion for optimizing the OS, wherein the suggestion may include at least one perturbated OS element value.
US 6422373 B1 Yellop; Andrew Michael et al. Money handling interface and method A method of operating a money validator connected to a money-actuated machine through an interface carrying a plurality of price lines, comprising the steps of sensing said price lines and actuating one of said lines when sufficient money has been deposited in the validator; wherein the validator is arranged to detect at least two combinations each comprising the actuation of at least two different said price lines, and to respond differently to said combinations.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
Prosecution Insights