DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Acknowledgment
This action is in response to the Patent Application filed on October 31, 2025. Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Claim Objection
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites the limitations "…the transaction including the transfer of a virtual asset …, and the transfer of one or more tokens …" (emphasis added.) The underlined terms are referred to only once in the claims and therefore do not have antecedent basis. In order to avoid a 112(b) rejection for lack of antecedent basis, it is required that definite article “the” is removed from both terms.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-4 are directed to a system (product). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-4 are directed to the abstract idea of determining a budget, and making a payment based on the payment not exceeding the budget, as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
In the following analysis, bolded text indicates abstract idea and the rest of the text indicates additional elements. Independent claims 1 and 3 recite:
a processor and a memory, the memory containing non-transitory computer-readable instructions configured to cause the processor to:
install a wallet application;
establish, based on user input, a budget associated with the wallet;
receive a user request to exchange a quantity of money for one or more tokens;
determine that the quantity of money does not exceed the budget;
trigger a receiving of one or more tokens to the wallet;
trigger, in response to a user action, a transaction associated with a recipe, the transaction including the transfer of a virtual asset comprising an artistic creation to the wallet, and the transfer of one or more tokens from the wallet to a second user.
In addition, claim 3 recites:
determine that the quantity of money exceeds the budget;
withhold from triggering a receiving of one or more tokens to the wallet;
display, to the user, a message indicating that the quantity of money required for the tokens exceeds the budget.
The claim recitation is directed to determining a budget, and making a payment based on the payment not exceeding the budget. Therefore the claims recite a fundamental economic principle or practice grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for determining a budget, and making a payment based on the payment not exceeding the budget. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a processor and a memory containing non-transitory computer-readable instructions, and installing a wallet application, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The use of a processor and a memory containing non-transitory computer-readable instructions, and installing a wallet application, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than one or more computing devices performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) ). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2 recites:
wherein the one or more tokens are associated with a game of chance,
which further describes the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites:
present, to the user, an option to override the budget;
receive, from the user, an instruction to override the budget; and
trigger a receiving of one or more tokens to the wallet in exchange for the quantity of money,
which further describes the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurani (US Patent Publication No. 11,423,393) in view of Zorzano Blasco (US Patent Publication No.: 2021/0224759.)
With respect to claims 1 and 3, Kurani teaches:
a processor and a memory, the memory containing non-transitory computer-readable instructions… (Col. 28 l. 58-Col. 29 l. 22)
install a wallet application; (Col. 4 l. 66-Col. 5 l. 18)
establish, based on user input, a budget associated with the wallet; (select a source account based on account balance (i.e. budget): Col. 19 ll. 10-50)
receive a user request to exchange a quantity of money for one or more tokens; (receive payment request from user: Col. 17 ll. 47-49)
determine that the quantity of money does not exceed the budget; (determine if account balance is sufficient: Col. 19 ll. 10-50)
Kurani does not explicitly teach; however, Zorzano Blasco teaches:
trigger a receiving of one or more tokens to the wallet; (acquiring new money (tokens) using fiat money: [0085], the money is kept in a wallet: [0105])
trigger, in response to a user action, a transaction associated with a recipe, (acquiring assets in asset market: [0194], [0198], [0276], exchange platform works according to a set of rules (i.e., recipes): [0193])
the transaction including the transfer of a virtual asset … to the wallet, and the transfer of one or more tokens from the wallet to a second user. (buy asset in exchange for new money (tokens): [0102] purchased assets are added to user account (wallet): [0121], [0146])
determine that the quantity of money exceeds the budget; (notice of insufficient funds is sent to client device: [0130]-[0131], [0135], [0327], [0343], [0354])
withhold from triggering a receiving of one or more tokens to the wallet; (notice of insufficient funds is sent to client device: [0130]-[0131], [0135])
display, to the user, a message indicating that the quantity of money required for the tokens exceeds the budget. ; (notice of insufficient funds is sent to client device: [0130]-[0131], [0135])
In addition, Zorzano Blasco teaches:
determine that the quantity of money does not exceed the budget; (ensure that enough funds are available: [0120], [0134])
Kurani and Zorzano Blasco do not explicitly teach:
a virtual asset comprising an artistic creation.
However, claim recitation “a virtual asset comprising an artistic creation,” indicates non-functional descriptive material and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the asset and currency exchange based on fund limits, as taught by Zorzano Blasco, into the mobile wallet account balance management system of Kurani, in order to ensure transaction legitimacy and prevent fraud. (Zorzano Blasco: Abstract, [0005]-[0006])
With respect to claim 2 Kurani and Zorzano Blasco teach the limitations of claim 1.
Kurani and Zorzano Blasco do not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more tokens are associated with a game of chance.
However, claim recitation indicates non-functional descriptive material that merely describes data and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 4 Kurani and Zorzano Blasco teach the limitations of claim 3.
Moreover, Zorzano Blasco
present, to the user, an option to override the budget; (sending notification of insufficient balance to client: [0175])
receive, from the user, an instruction to override the budget; (receive communication from client: [0176])
trigger a receiving of one or more tokens to the wallet in exchange for the quantity of money. (perform transaction after receiving affirmative response from the client: [0176]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the asset and currency exchange based on fund limits, as taught by Zorzano Blasco, into the mobile wallet account balance management system of Kurani, in order to ensure transaction legitimacy and prevent fraud. (Zorzano Blasco: Abstract, [0005]-[0006])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ehrlich-Quinn (US 2019/0236594 ) teaches cryptocurrency and fiat money exchange based on sufficiency of funds; Knight (US 2019/0299105,) teaches converting digital assets in a gaming platform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMA ASGARI whose telephone number is (571)272-2037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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.
/SIMA ASGARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights