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 .
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action.
Claims 1-13 have been examined in this application.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on November 17, 2025 and February 9, 2026 have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 5 are both directed to a system of the same. A restriction is not issued because claim 5 is determined to be a narrower claim compared to claim 1 as it includes at least a clock unit, transmission of the cryptocurrency to the second server, and the last four limitations. In efforts of advancing prosecution, Applicant is advised to cancel claims 1-4 and focus on the remaining claims.
Claims 1-13 include multiple conditional limitations, which fail to positively capture the function that the entity carries. Also, such conditional limitations result in the claims failing to convey how such functions are carried out by the claimed entities.
Claims 2-4 and 6-13 include “another second server” and various units. It is not clear whether this another second server is part of the claimed system nor is it clear whether the units and components of the “another second server” are the same or different than those of the first and second server.
Furthermore, claims 1 and 5 fail to properly capture appropriate Beauregard language (structure and recitation of the structure carrying out the limitations).
Finally, the claims as a whole contain various grammatical errors and lack clarity. A review of all claims is requested in order to appropriately amend the claims to clearly convey what the Applicant deems as their invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a unification unit carrying out unification process,” “first controller generates cryptocurrency,” “second controller… makes…” “unification unit carried out the unification process” “unification unit generates a new tree-structure…,” “a clock unit transmits…,” “the second controller writes…,” “the second controller transmits a reduced amount…” in claims 1-13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per claims 1 and 5, the claims, there is no clear structure linked to at least the first and second servers and structure for the identified elements under 112(f). Likewise, no clear recitation of the claimed limitations are carried out is found in the Specification. For example, how is the unification process carried out, how is the cryptocurrency generated without use of a blockchain, how the second controller “makes in the second non-transitory storage medium a temporary tree-structure…,” how the “unification unit generates a new tree-structure” and based on not using blockchain.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-13 are rejected under the same rational and for mere dependence on the rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a unification unit carrying out unification process,” “first controller generates cryptocurrency,” “second controller… makes…” “unification unit carried out the unification process” “unification unit generates a new tree-structure…,” “a clock unit transmits…,” “the second controller writes…,” “the second controller transmits a reduced amount…” in at least claims 1 and 5 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No clear link between the structure, material, or acts and the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 5-13, recite “the passage of the predetermined period of time” in claim 5. It is not clear if this limitation is referring to the “every predetermined period of time” associated with the clock sending hashed time data or whether it is referring to some other passage of predetermined period of time that is different.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-13 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of transmitting a reduced amount of currency in response to a trigger without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions such as sales activities, and business relations. The relationship between the data of the transaction and the expected data is compared and if a match is true then the transaction is processed before a trigger is activated, wherein the trigger is a determination of a passage of time, causing a reduction of funds to be sent. The claimed scope, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is clearly directed to an abstract idea that falls under the above classification of abstract ideas. The claimed scope captures clear business relations and commercial interactions that involve the basic transfer of funds or settlement of a transaction and transaction rules that can include said trigger that reduces the funds, which were the main transaction or transferred funds.
Claim 5, recites:
A cryptocurrency system making use of unification type data structure guaranteeing monotonicity, including:
a first server including a first controller, a first communication unit, and a first non-transitory storage medium;
a second server including a second controller, a second communication unit, and a second non-transitory storage medium; and
a clock unit independent of the first and second servers, wherein
the second controller includes a unification unit carrying out unification process,
the first controller generates cryptocurrency comprised of tree-structured data having an attribute, and transmits the cryptocurrency to the second server,
the second controller, when the second server receives the cryptocurrency from the first server, makes in the second non-transitory storage medium a temporary tree-structure of cryptocurrency candidate to be received from the first sever,
the unification unit carries out the unification process to compare the attribute of the cryptocurrency having been generated by the first controller to the attribute of the candidate cryptocurrency,
the unification unit generates a new tree-structure only when both of the attributes logically match each other, and does not generate a new tree-structure when both of the attributes do not logically match each other,
the cryptocurrency is designed to have such a structure that at least amount among value and amount thereof is reduced with passage of a predetermined period of time,
the clock unit transmits hashed time data to the second server every predetermined period of time,
the second controller writes the hashed time data into the cryptocurrency, and prohibits the hashed time data to be overwritten, and
the second controller transmits a reduced amount of the cryptocurrency to the first sever at the passage of the predetermined period of time having written into the cryptocurrency.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: a first server including a first controller, a first communication unit, and a first non-transitory storage medium, a second server including a second controller, a second communication unit, and a second non-transitory storage medium, a clock unit, a unification unit, the clock unit transmits hashed time data to the second server every predetermined period of time, and the second controller writes the hashed time data into the cryptocurrency, and prohibits the hashed time data to be overwritten. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as receiving and sending data, analyzing the data, generating data, and determining a response or outcome. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the 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.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims include additional elements such as another second server and related units, however, these additional elements fail to amount to a practical application as they are recited at a high level of generality, amounting to mere functions executable by a generic computer. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Prior Art
The art of record, art considered, and the art cited fail to teach the combined claimed scope. The claimed scope is directed to generation of cryptocurrency by a controller of a first server, and a second controller of a second server makes a temporary tree-structure (data structure) of cryptocurrency candidate to be received (data structure to be received) from the first server, the unification unit carried out the unification process (comparison) between data/attribute of the cryptocurrency generated and the data/attribute of the candidate cryptocurrency before generating a new tree-structure (data structure with currency information). Furthermore, and according to claim 5, the system includes a clock unit that is independent of either server, the clock sending hashed time data to the second server based on a time interval, the second controller writes the hashed data to the cryptocurrency, and the second controller sends reduced amount of the cryptocurrency to the first server at the passage of the predetermined period of time. The second controller writes the hashed time data into the cryptocurrency and sends a reduced amount of the cryptocurrency to the first server at the passage of the predetermined period of time having written into the cryptocurrency.
The above claimed scope contain various clarity issues. However, the claimed scope fails to be taught by any of the references cited and considered, including non-patent literature and foreign references. The claimed scope is not directed to conventional blockchain/cryptocurrency transactions, which the references are based on. The time trigger is a designed business choice; however, no teaching is found of such a choice that would make it obvious to reduce the cryptocurrency based on time and based on a hash of predetermined time.
Therefore, the claimed scope is deemed novel over prior art, which fails to teach the limitations as a whole or in part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Hadi Armouche, can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights