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 .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on November 25, 2025.
Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 11/25/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “herein: the exchange data are token exchange data, preferably token registration data for registration in a token register of one or more new digital currency token created in the digital currency token exchange based on one or more old digital currency token, wherein normal token exchange data particularly comprise: token reference(s) of the old digital currency token(s); digital currency value(s) of the old digital currency token(s); token reference(s) of the new digital currency token(s) digital currency value(s) of the new digital currency token(s); and one or more signatures of the old digital currency token(s); and/or wherein crisis token exchange data particularly comprise: crisis token reference(s) of the new digital currency token(s); digital currency value(s) of the new digital currency token(s); and one ore more crisis signatures of the old digital currency token(s).”
The phrasing, “one or more new digital token,” should be changed to “one or more new digital tokens.”
The phrasing, “one or more old digital token,” should be changed to “one or more old digital tokens.”
A semicolon “;” should be added after the part, “token reference(s) of the new digital currency token(s).”
The word “ore” should be changed to “or” in “one ore more crisis signatures.”
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 transaction unit in claims 1, 3-7, and 10
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. Paragraph [0079] of the specification describes: “Fig. 2 shows details of a digital currency wallet 10: The digital currency wallet 10 comprises a storage unit 12 and a transaction unit 11. Further units such as an interface unit 19 and /or a processor unit may exist but are not illustrated.” The specification does not disclose whether the transaction unit is software, firmware, or hardware. Additionally, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform the claimed functions.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites a transaction unit configured to check the stored digital currency wallet mode, to create and/or receive exchange data, and to store the exchange data. Claim 3-7 and 10 recite the transaction unit configured to perform functions for reducing exchange data storage and for creating new tokens. The specification does not provide an adequate structure to perform the claimed functions listed above. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described in sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 2-14 are rejected because they depend on the rejected independent claim 1.
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 1-14 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 3 recites “wherein: the transaction unit is configured for reduced exchange data storage by not creating exchange data and/or by not storing created or received exchange data in the storage unit and/or by not sending created exchange data to the other digital currency wallet of the digital currency exchange.”
Claim 4 recites “wherein: the transaction unit is configured for reduced exchange data storage by creating or receiving crisis exchange data and storing the crisis exchange data, wherein preferably the crisis exchange data include a reduced number of exchange data elements and/or exchange data elements of reduced size.”
Claim 5 recites “wherein: the transaction unit is configured for reduced exchange data storage by deleting previously stored exchange data or parts thereof when storing the created or received exchange data.”
Claim 6 recites “wherein: the transaction unit is configured for reduced exchange data storage by selectively storing or not storing exchange data based on a filter parameter of the offline digital currency exchange, wherein the filter parameter preferably comprises a digital currency value of the offline digital currency exchange and/or a digital currency wallet type of the other digital currency wallet of the offline digital currency exchange.”
Claim 7 recites “wherein: the transaction unit is configured for reduced exchange data storage by storing the exchange data in only one of the two digital currency wallets of the offline digital currency exchange, the digital currency wallet and another digital currency wallet.”
Claims 3-7 recite wherein the transaction unit is configured for reduced exchange data storage. Reduced exchange data storage means that the exchange data storage was already reduced. Therefore, it is unclear whether the recited steps/functions for reducing the exchange data storage are performed by the transaction unit. For examination purpose, these limitations are interpreted to suggest that the recited steps/functions for reducing the exchange data storage are performed by any entities/components.
Claim 4 recites “wherein: the transaction unit is configured for reduced exchange data storage by creating or receiving crisis exchange data and storing the crisis exchange data, wherein preferably the crisis exchange data include a reduced number of exchange data elements and/or exchange data elements of reduced size.”
The term “preferably” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” could mean “ideally” or “if possible.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 4, it is unclear whether the crisis exchange data actually include a reduced number of exchange data elements and/or exchange data elements of reduced size.
Claims 6, 8, and 10-14, as claim 4, also include the word “preferably” in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. Claims 6, 8, and 10-14 are rejected for the same reason as claim 4.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the filter parameter preferably comprises a digital currency value of the offline digital currency exchange and/or a digital currency wallet type of the other digital currency wallet of the offline digital currency exchange.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the other digital currency wallet” in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “wherein: the transaction unit is configured for reduced exchange data storage by storing the exchange data in only one of the two digital currency wallets of the offline digital currency exchange, the digital currency wallet and another digital currency wallet.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the two digital currency wallets” in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the limit is increased or deactivated in the crisis digital currency mode.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the limit” in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “wherein: transaction unit in the crisis digital currency wallet mode is configured to create new crisis digital currency tokens including a crisis mode indicator … wherein the crisis mode indicator is particularly included in a token reference of the created new crisis digital currency token.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the created new crisis digital currency token” in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “wherein: the exchange data are token exchange data, preferably token registration data for registration in a token register of one or more new digital currency token created in the digital currency token exchange based on one or more old digital currency token.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the digital currency token exchange” in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “wherein: digital currency tokens of the digital currency token system comprise one or more of the following token data elements.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the digital currency token system” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites a transaction unit configured to check the stored digital currency wallet mode, to create and/or receive exchange data, and to store the exchange data. Claim 3-7 and 10 recite the transaction unit configured to perform functions for reducing exchange data storage and for creating new tokens.
Paragraph [0079] of the specification describes: “Fig. 2 shows details of a digital currency wallet 10: The digital currency wallet 10 comprises a storage unit 12 and a transaction unit 11. Further units such as an interface unit 19 and /or a processor unit may exist but are not illustrated.” The specification does not disclose whether the transaction unit is software, firmware, or hardware. Additionally, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform the claimed functions. Therefore, it is unclear which structure or structures perform the claimed functions.
The limitations, which recite a transaction unit in claims 1, 3-7, and 10, 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. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform the claimed functions. 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.
The 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 the 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, the 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.
Dependent claims 2-14 are rejected because they depend on the rejected independent claim 1.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In this instance, claims 1-13 are directed to a digital currency wallet, and claim 14 is directed to a system comprising one or more digital currency wallets. Therefore, claims 1-14 fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 as a whole is directed to digital currency exchange. Specifically, the claim recites processing currency exchange via different modes, such as online or offline, which could be a process related to fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial interactions. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite an abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites “[a] digital currency wallet, comprising a storage unit comprising digital currency and a digital currency wallet mode; and a transaction unit is configured to check the stored digital currency wallet mode before using the digital currency in a digital currency exchange; the digital currency wallet supporting a first digital currency wallet mode, the first digital currency wallet mode being a normal digital currency wallet mode, and a second digital currency wallet mode; the transaction unit - when using the digital currency in a digital currency exchange in the normal digital currency wallet mode - is configured to create and/or receive exchange data and to store the exchange data in the storage unit; wherein the second digital currency wallet mode is a crisis digital currency wallet mode; the digital currency wallet is configured to switch from the normal digital currency wallet mode to the crisis digital currency wallet mode; and the transaction unit - when using the digital currency or crisis digital currency in an offline digital currency exchange in the crisis digital currency wallet mode – is configured for reduced exchange data storage in order to increase a number of possible offline digital currency exchanges in the crisis digital currency wallet mode.”
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The non-underlined additional elements of claim 1, such as a digital currency wallet comprising a transaction unit, are merely used as tools to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the additional elements of a digital currency wallet and a transaction unit perform the steps and functions of processing digital currency exchanges based on a digital currency wallet mode. The use of computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer component performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional element of a storage unit comprising digital currency and a digital currency wallet mode merely discloses a storage that stores information associated with a digital currency wallet. The additional elements — the digital currency wallet supporting a first digital currency wallet mode, the first digital currency wallet mode being a normal digital currency wallet mode, a second digital currency wallet mode, and wherein the digital currency wallet is configured to switch from the normal digital currency wallet mode to the crisis digital currency wallet mode —merely disclose the characteristics of the digital currency wallet. One of ordinary skill in the art knows that a digital wallet could support different modes, such as online or offline modes, and perform currency transfer via either online or offline. 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)); the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways 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) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it 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. Claim 1 as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), using the additional elements of a digital currency wallet and a transaction unit to perform the steps or functions amounts to no more than using computer components to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of digital currency exchange. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the additional elements of a digital currency wallet and a transaction unit perform the steps or functions of processing digital currency exchanges based on a digital currency wallet mode. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional element of a storage unit comprising digital currency and a digital currency wallet mode merely discloses a storage that stores information associated with a digital currency wallet. The additional elements — the digital currency wallet supporting a first digital currency wallet mode, the first digital currency wallet mode being a normal digital currency wallet mode, a second digital currency wallet mode, and wherein the digital currency wallet is configured to switch from the normal digital currency wallet mode to the crisis digital currency wallet mode — merely disclose the characteristics of the digital currency wallet. One of ordinary skill in the art knows that a digital wallet could support different modes, such as online or offline modes, and perform currency transfer via either online or offline. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely recites the concept of digital currency exchange. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does nothing more than employing the computer components as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as being directed toward patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-14 have also been considered for subject-matter eligibility. However, these claims fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 2 recites sending the stored exchange data in an offline digital currency exchange to a system unit of a digital currency system, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas and further limits the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The additional element of a storage unit is merely cited as a storage. It is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites not creating exchange data and/or not storing created or received exchange data and/or not sending created exchange data to the other digital currency wallet of the digital currency exchange, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas and further limits the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The additional element of a transaction unit amounts to no more than employing a computer component as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The additional element of a storage unit is merely cited as a storage. These additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites creating or receiving crisis exchange data and storing the crisis exchange data, wherein preferably the crisis exchange data include a reduced number of exchange data elements and/or exchange data elements of reduced size, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas and further limits the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The additional element of a transaction unit amounts to no more than employing a computer component as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites deleting previously stored exchange data or parts thereof when storing the created or received exchange data, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas and further limits the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The additional element of a transaction unit amounts to no more than employing a computer component as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites selectively storing or not storing exchange data based on a filter parameter of the offline digital currency exchange, wherein the filter parameter preferably comprises a digital currency value of the offline digital currency exchange and/or a digital currency wallet type of the other digital currency wallet of the offline digital currency exchange, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas and further limits the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The additional element of a transaction unit amounts to no more than employing a computer component as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites storing the exchange data in only one of the two digital currency wallets of the offline digital currency exchange, the digital currency wallet and another digital currency wallet, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas and further limits the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The additional element of a transaction unit amounts to no more than employing a computer component as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites additional elements of wherein: the storage unit includes one or more limits for offline digital currency exchanges, preferably a maximum digital currency value limit and/or a maximum number of consecutive offline digital currency exchanges, wherein the limit is increased or deactivated in the crisis digital currency mode. The additional elements merely describe the characteristics of the storage unit and the limits. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites switching modes based on the received data, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas and further limits the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The additional element of a digital currency wallet amounts to no more than employing a computer component as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites creating new crisis digital currency tokens including a crisis mode indicator, preferably a unique crisis identifier, wherein the crisis mode indicator is particularly included in a token reference of the created new crisis digital currency token, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas and further limits the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The additional element of a transaction unit amounts to no more than employing a computer component as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites additional elements of wherein: the exchange data are token exchange data, preferably token registration data for registration in a token register of one or more new digital currency token created in the digital currency token exchange based on one or more old digital currency token, wherein normal token exchange data particularly comprise: token reference(s) of the old digital currency token(s); digital currency value(s) of the old digital currency token(s); token reference(s) of the new digital currency token(s) digital currency value(s) of the new digital currency token(s); and one or more signatures of the old digital currency token(s); and/or wherein crisis token exchange data particularly comprise: crisis token reference(s) of the new digital currency token(s); digital currency value(s) of the new digital currency token(s); and one or more crisis signatures of the old digital currency token(s). The additional elements merely describe the characteristics of the exchange data. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites additional elements of wherein the exchange data are exchange log data for logging the digital currency exchange in an exchange log register, the exchange log data preferably comprising at least one or both digital currency wallet identifiers and a digital currency value of the digital currency exchange. The additional elements merely describe the characteristics of the exchange data. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements of wherein: digital currency tokens of the digital currency token system comprise one or more of the following token data elements: a digital currency token value, a token individual token secret and/or a token individual token reference; and/or the storage unit comprises one or more of the following wallet data elements: a wallet identifier, a wallet authentication key and/or a wallet certificate, preferably for the wallet identifier and/or the wallet authentication key. The additional elements merely describe the characteristics of digital currency tokens. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites an additional element of a digital currency system comprising one or more digital currency wallets according to claim 1; and one or more of the following: a digital currency token register; preferably a digital currency token reference register; and/or a digital currency exchange log register; and/or a crisis token management unit; and/or a digital currency token issuing unit. The additional elements merely describe the characteristics of a digital currency system. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sreekumar et al. (US 20240112132 A1) in view of Fan et al. (CN 116777457 A).
Claim 1:
Sreekumar disclose the followings:
a digital currency wallet, comprising a storage unit comprising digital currency and a digital currency wallet mode; a transaction unit is configured to check the stored digital currency wallet mode before using the digital currency in a digital currency exchange. (See paragraph [0029]; paragraph [0066]; and paragraph [0086], “[p]rocess 1300 can provide a universal wallet (e.g. a digital wallet) that can operate in offline and online modes, where it can transact without being connected to the internet. The wallet can hold anything that can be digitalized. This can include, inter alia: government-backed money Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), Crypto Coins (Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc.) alternative Crypto coins, FTs, NFTs, health records, medical records, lab records, and other personal profiles within this Universal Wallet…. In step 1302, process 1300 can transfer assets such as CBDC coins from one wallet to another wallet using NFC or equivalent.” These citations indicate that the digital currency and information related to online or offline modes must be stored in a storage associated with the digital wallet. The digital wallet needs to select a mode to make a transaction by using the stored digital currency. Any component of the digital wallet that executes application/instructions stored in the digital wallet to perform the same functions as claimed could be interpreted as a transaction unit.)
the digital currency wallet supporting a first digital currency wallet mode (i.e., an online mode), the first digital currency wallet mode being a normal digital currency wallet mode, and a second digital currency wallet mode (i.e., an offline mode). (See paragraph [0029], paragraph [0066], and paragraph [0086].)
the transaction unit - when using the digital currency in a digital currency exchange in the normal digital currency wallet mode - is configured to create and/or receive exchange data and to store the exchange data in the storage unit. (See paragraph [0029], paragraph [0066], and paragraph [0086].)
wherein the second digital currency wallet mode is a crisis digital currency wallet mode; the digital currency wallet is configured to switch from the normal digital currency wallet mode to the crisis digital currency wallet mode. (See paragraph [0029], paragraph [0066], and paragraph [0086].)
the transaction unit - when using the digital currency or crisis digital currency in an offline digital currency exchange in the crisis digital currency wallet mode – is configured for […] exchange data storage. (See paragraph [0029], paragraph [0066], and paragraph [0086].)
Sreekumar does not explicitly disclose a reduced exchange data storage.
However, Fan, an analogous art of processing digital currency exchanges by using digital wallets, discloses reduced exchange data storage for an offline digital currency exchange in order to increase a number of possible offline digital exchanges in the crisis digital currency wallet mode. (See paragraphs 1-3, page 7, “[t]he hard wallet executing the payment method does not store coin strings, but performs risk management and control through offline transaction amount issued by a bank, generates payment credentials, and digital RMB transaction data does not contain coin string information but only contains owner identification (public key) and transaction chain data, so that communication and storage data are greatly reduced.… The amount of communication and stored data in the hard wallet off-line payment scenario is greatly reduced. The transaction speed is improved under the scene of the offline payment of the hard wallet, and the scene of frequent transaction amount such as rail transit can be met.”)
Additionally, Fan discloses a digital currency wallet comprising a processor executing stored instructions to perform digital currency exchanges. (See paragraphs 3-8, page 11.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Fan in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to improve the speed and quantity of offline transactions of the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the digital currency exchange data for offline transactions, so that the speed and quantity of offline transactions can meet the requirement (paragraphs 3, page 7, Fan).
Examiner’s Note: With respect to “in order to increase a number of possible offline digital currency exchanges in the crisis digital currency wallet mode,” this limitation recites intended result of reduced exchange data storage. A clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim (Texas Instruments Inc. v. International Trade Commission 26, USPQ2d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Griffin v. Bertina, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Amazon.com Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1747 (CAFC 2001)) (MPEP 2111.04).
Claim 2:
Sreekumar in view of Fan discloses the limitations shown above.
Fan further discloses wherein: the exchange data are stored in the storage unit in an offline digital currency exchange for being sent to a system unit of a digital currency system. (See paragraph 2, page 10, “[t]he hard wallet uploads the stored payment credentials and transaction stream to an operation mechanism background, the operation mechanism background associates the account wallet of the hard wallet according to the transaction stream.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Fan in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to effectively facilitate the offline digital currency exchanges of the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to send the offline digital currency exchange data to a backend system, so that the offline digital currency exchanges can be effectively processed (paragraph 2, page 10, Fan).
Claim 4:
Sreekumar in view of Fan discloses the limitations shown above.
Fan further discloses wherein: the transaction unit is configured for reduced exchange data storage by creating or receiving crisis exchange data and storing the crisis exchange data, wherein preferably the crisis exchange data include a reduced number of exchange data elements and/or exchange data elements of reduced size. (See paragraphs 1-3, page 7.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Fan in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to improve the speed and quantity of offline transactions of the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the digital currency exchange data for offline transactions by including a reduced number of exchange data elements, so that the speed and quantity of offline transactions can meet the requirement (paragraph 3, page 7, Fan).
Claim 5:
Sreekumar in view of Fan discloses the limitations shown above.
Fan further discloses wherein: the transaction unit is configured for reduced exchange data storage by deleting previously stored exchange data or parts thereof when storing the created or received exchange data. (See paragraph 10, page 10, “[a]fter the MAC is verified by the hard wallet, the data such as the accumulated amount of off-line transaction, the off-line transaction times, transaction flow and the like are cleared, and if new security management data is issued, the security management data can be updated at the same time.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Fan in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to improve the speed and quantity of offline transactions of the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the digital currency exchange data for offline transactions by clearing previous digital currency exchange data, so that more space is available for the new transactions (paragraph 10, page 10, Fan).
Claim 6:
Sreekumar in view of Fan discloses the limitations shown above.
Fan further discloses wherein: the transaction unit is configured for reduced exchange data storage by selectively storing or not storing exchange data based on a filter parameter of the offline digital currency exchange, wherein the filter parameter preferably comprises a digital currency value of the offline digital currency exchange and/or a digital currency wallet type of the other digital currency wallet of the offline digital currency exchange. (See paragraphs 1-3, page 7.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Fan in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to improve the speed and quantity of offline transactions of the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the digital currency exchange data for offline transactions by selectively storing exchange data based on a filter parameter, so that the speed and quantity of offline transactions can meet the requirement (paragraph 3, page 7, Fan).
Claim 8:
Sreekumar in view of Fan discloses the limitations shown above.
Fan further discloses wherein: the storage unit includes one or more limits for offline digital currency exchanges, preferably a maximum digital currency value limit and/or a maximum number of consecutive offline digital currency exchanges, wherein the limit is increased or deactivated in the crisis digital currency mode. (See Abstract; paragraph 3, page 7; paragraph 6, page 8, “the security management parameters include: an offline data accumulation limit, a single offline limit, and a number of consecutive offline transactions limit”; paragraph 10, page 8, “issuing the generated data such as the hard wallet public key certificate, the hard wallet security management parameters and the like to the mechanism counter, and transmitting the data such as the hard wallet public key certificate, the hard wallet security management parameters and the like to the hard wallet by the mechanism counter”; and paragraphs 4-8, page 9, “[t]he payer updates the off-line transaction cumulative amount, off-line transaction times, and stores the transaction flow (where the transaction status is in progress).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Fan in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to improve the security of offline transactions of the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to setup one or more security management parameters to limit the offline transactions, so that the offline transactions can be validated based on the limited security management parameters (Abstract, Fan).
Claim 12:
Sreekumar in view of Fan discloses the limitations shown above.
Fan further discloses wherein the exchange data are exchange log data for logging the digital currency exchange in an exchange log register, the exchange log data preferably comprising at least one or both digital currency wallet identifiers and a digital currency value of the digital currency exchange. (See paragraph 8, page 9, “[t]he payer updates the off-line transaction cumulative amount, off-line transaction times, and stores the transaction flow (where the transaction status is in progress)”; paragraphs 12-14, page 9, “[t]he transaction pipeline comprises: information such as transaction type, transaction amount, transaction time, transaction index, payer wallet ID, payer wallet name, payer wallet association code, payee wallet ID, payee wallet name, payee wallet association code, transaction status, remarks, etc…. The payee stores the payment credentials, stores the transaction stream (where the transaction state is in progress)”; and paragraph 2, page 10, “[t]he hard wallet uploads the stored payment credentials and transaction stream to an operation mechanism background, the operation mechanism background associates the account wallet of the hard wallet according to the transaction stream.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Fan in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to improve the security of offline transactions of the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to log the digital currency exchange data, so that the offline transactions can be validated and processed based on the stored transaction information (paragraphs 12-14, page 9 and paragraph 2, page 10, Fan).
Claim 13:
Sreekumar in view of Fan discloses the limitations shown above.
Fan further discloses wherein: digital currency tokens of the digital currency token system comprise one or more of the following token data elements: a digital currency token value, a token individual token secret and/or a token individual token reference; or the storage unit comprises one or more of the following wallet data elements: a wallet identifier, a wallet authentication key or a wallet certificate, preferably for the wallet identifier or the wallet authentication key. (See paragraphs 8-10, page 8, “generating a wallet public and private key pair by the hard wallet, storing private key in the wallet, and returning the public key in a P10 certificate format. And 2, returning the data such as the hard wallet ID, the public key (P10 certificate) and the like of the hard wallet, and uploading the data to an operation mechanism background by the counter of the mechanism … and transmitting the data such as the hard wallet public key certificate, the hard wallet security management parameters and the like to the hard wallet by the mechanism counter.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Fan in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to improve the offline transaction process of the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to store a walled identifier and/or a wallet authentication key, so that the offline transactions can be effectively executed based on the stored wallet information (paragraphs 8-13, page 8, Fan).
Claim 14:
Sreekumar in view of Fan discloses the limitations shown above.
Sreekumar discloses digital currency wallets according to claim 1. (See paragraph [0086].)
Fan discloses a digital currency system comprising one or more digital currency wallets; and one or more of the following: a digital currency token register; preferably a digital currency token reference register; or a digital currency exchange log register; or a crisis token management unit; or a digital currency token issuing unit. (See paragraphs 7-14, page 8; paragraphs 12-14, page 9; and paragraph 2, page 10.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Fan in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to improve the offline transaction process of the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a digital currency exchange log register in a digital currency system, so that the offline transactions can be effectively validated and executed by the digital currency system (paragraphs 2 and 8, page 10, Fan).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sreekumar et al. (US 20240112132 A1) in view of Fan et al. (CN 116777457 A), and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 114119003 A).
Claim 3:
Sreekumar in view of Fan discloses the limitations shown above.
Fan discloses reduced exchange data storage. (See paragraphs 1-3, page 7.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Fan in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to improve the speed and quantity of offline transactions of the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the digital currency exchange data for offline transactions, so that the speed and quantity of offline transactions can meet the requirement (paragraph 3, page 7, Fan).
Neither Sreekumar nor Fan explicitly discloses not creating exchange data and/or by not storing created or received exchange data in the storage unit and/or by not sending created exchange data to the other digital currency wallet of the digital currency exchange.
However, Wu, an analogous art of processing offline transactions, discloses not storing created or received exchange data in the storage unit. (See paragraph 10, page 8, “since the storage space of the SE in the terminal device performing the offline payment service is limited, the offline transaction record is no longer stored in the SE.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Wu in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to process more offline transactions in the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to not store offline transaction data in the storage unit, so as to ensure a large number of offline transactions can be effectively processed (the first paragraph of section Detailed Description, page 7 and paragraph 10, page 8, Wu).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sreekumar et al. (US 20240112132 A1) in view of Fan et al. (CN 116777457 A), and further in view of Perpetua et al. (WO 2023214928 A1).
Claim 7:
Sreekumar in view of Fan discloses the limitations shown above.
Fan discloses reduced exchange data storage. (See paragraphs 1-3, page 7.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Fan in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to improve the speed and quantity of offline transactions of the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the digital currency exchange data for offline transactions, so that the speed and quantity of offline transactions can meet the requirement (paragraph 3, page 7, Fan).
Neither Sreekumar nor Fan explicitly discloses storing the exchange data in only one of the two digital currency wallets of the offline digital currency exchange, the digital currency wallet and another digital currency wallet.
However, Perpetua, an analogous art of processing offline transactions, discloses storing the exchange data in only one of the two digital currency wallets of the offline digital currency exchange, the digital currency wallet and another digital currency wallet. (See page 1, lines 27-35, “[t]he offline digital payment is stored in one or both of the communication devices, pending online settlement at some later stage”; claim 4, page 22, “at least one of the second and third communication devices (CDl, CD2) is configured for storing (137, 137') the second offline digital payment (TX2) in its respective second digital cash repository (DC Rep 2)”; and claim 5, page 23.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Perpetua in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to process more offline transactions in the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to store transaction information in one of the digital wallets, so that the currency exchange data storage can be reduced (page 1, lines 27-35 8, Perpetua).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sreekumar et al. (US 20240112132 A1) in view of Fan et al. (CN 116777457 A), and further in view of Beye (US 20200394646 A1).
Claim 9:
Sreekumar in view of Fan discloses the limitations shown above.
Sreekumar discloses wherein: the digital currency wallet is adapted to switch between online and offline modes. (See paragraph [0086].)
Neither Sreekumar nor Fan explicitly discloses that the digital currency wallet is adapted to switch if crisis switching data are received, the crisis switching data being public crisis switching data, and that the public crisis switching data will be published and/or distributed in a crisis situation.
However, Beye, an analogous art of processing currency exchange, discloses the digital currency wallet is adapted to switch if crisis switching data are received, the crisis switching data being public crisis switching data, and the public crisis switching data will be published and/or distributed in a crisis situation. (See paragraphs [0065]-[0066]; paragraph [0070]; paragraph [0077]; Fig. 3; and paragraphs [0112]-[0116].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Beye in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to improve the payment transaction process of the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to switch the offline mode if a disaster event is notified, so that the necessary transactions can be effectively performed by switching to offline mode if a disaster event happens (Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0112]-[0116], Beye).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sreekumar et al. (US 20240112132 A1) in view of Fan et al. (CN 116777457 A), and further in view of Xu et al. (EP 4345722 A1) and Maeng (US 11107066 B1).
Claim 10:
Sreekumar in view of Fan discloses the limitations shown above.
Sreekumar discloses generating tokens. (See paragraphs [0064]-[0065].)
Neither Sreekumar nor Fan explicitly discloses wherein: transaction unit in the crisis digital currency wallet mode is configured to create new crisis digital currency tokens including a crisis mode indicator, preferably a unique crisis identifier, wherein the crisis mode indicator is particularly included in a token reference of the created new crisis digital currency token.
However, Xu, an analogous art of processing online or offline transactions, discloses wherein: transaction unit in the crisis digital currency wallet mode is configured to create new crisis digital currency tokens. (See paragraph [0019], “[i]f the network connection status of the second terminal is unconnected, the first terminal can determine that an offline transaction needs to be implemented. In this case, a processing process of generating the transaction identification code used to perform offline transaction processing on the target transaction and a working status (for example, a payload status of a processor and a storage status of a storage) of each involved component can be detected”; paragraph [0023], “[b]y using the connection, offline transaction processing can be performed between the first terminal and the second terminal (that is, the second terminal parses the transaction identification code, to obtain account information of the transaction initiator, and can perform resource transfer processing based on the account information and transaction information of the target transaction, and after resource transfer processing succeeds, the second terminal can send a resource transfer processing success notification message to the first terminal).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Xu in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to improve the offline transaction process of the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to generate a token for a situation where there is not internet connection, so that the offline transactions can be effectively processed by using the generated token. (paragraphs [0019] and [0023]-[0024], Xu).
Maeng, an analogous art of generating offline tokens, discloses new crisis digital currency tokens including a crisis mode indicator, preferably a unique crisis identifier, wherein the crisis mode indicator is particularly included in a token reference of the created new crisis digital currency token. (See Fig. 5; col. 10, line 8 – col. 11, line 38, “[i]n some examples, another component, such as the mobile wallet, may determine that a token issue event has occurred and may request that the wallet management system generate an offline token. A token issue event may be any suitable event that prompts the generation of an offline token…. The payment element or elements may be indicated by the token issue event…. For example, different sequences for a mobile wallet may correspond to offline tokens for different elements or combinations of elements. When the mobile wallet has a single sequence, selecting the next sequence number may comprise selecting the next unused number from the single sequence. When the mobile wallet has multiple sequences, selecting the next sequence number may comprise assigning the offline token to a sequence for the mobile wallet (e.g., based at least in part on an element or elements for the offline token) and selecting the next sequence number for the appropriate sequence…. Example data that may be included in the raw token include, mobile wallet identification data describing the mobile wallet for which the offline token is generated and element identification data describing one or more payment elements for the offline token. Other example data that may be added to the raw token include the sequence number determined at action 506, and payment condition data…. At action 510, the wallet management system may cryptographically sign all or part of the raw token to generate the offline token.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Maeng in the Sreekumar system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the offline transaction process of the Sreekumar system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to generate an offline token including an identifier associated with a trigger event, so that the transactions can be effectively processed by using the generated offline token (Fig. 5; col. 10, line 8 – col. 11, line 38; and col. 14, line 41 – col. 15, line 31, Maeng).
Claim 11:
Sreekumar in view of Fan discloses the limitations shown above.
Sreekumar discloses generating tokens. (See paragraphs [0064]-[0065].)
Neither Sreekumar nor Fan explicitly discloses wherein: the exchange data are token exchange data, preferably token registration data for registration in a token register of one or more new digital currency token created in the digital currency token exchange based on one or more old digital currency token, wherein normal token exchange data particularly comprise: token reference(s) of the old digital currency token(s); digital currency value(s) of the old digital currency token(s); token reference(s) of the new digital currency token(s) digital currency value(s) of the new digital currency token(s); and one or more signatures of the old digital currency token(s); and/or wherein crisis token exchange data particularly comprise: crisis token reference(s) of the new digital currency token(s); digital currency value(s) of the new digital currency token(s); and one ore more crisis signatures of the old digital currency token(s).
However, Xu, an analogous art of processing online or offline transactions, discloses wherein: the exchange data are token exchange data, preferably token registration data for registration in a token register of one or more new digital currency token created in the digital currency token exchange based on one or more old digital currency account, wherein crisis token exchange data particularly comprise: crisis token reference(s) of the new digital currency token(s); digital currency value(s) of the new digital currency token(s). (See paragraph [0019] and paragraph [0023].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Xu in the Sreekumar system. Moreover, in order to improve the offline transaction process of the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include information associated with the generated token in the token exchange data, so that the offline transactions can be effectively processed by using the generated token. (paragraphs [0019] and [0023]-[0024], Xu).
Maeng discloses one or more new digital currency token created in the digital currency token exchange based on one or more old digital currency token, wherein token exchange data particularly comprise: one or more signatures associated with the old digital currency token(s). (See Fig. 5; col. 10, line 8 – col. 11, line 38.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Maeng in the Sreekumar system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the offline transaction process of the Sreekumar system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include information associated with the generated token and a signature in the token exchange data, so that the transactions can be effectively processed based on the information associated with the token and the signature (Fig. 5; col. 10, line 8 – col. 11, line 38; and col. 14, line 41 – col. 15, line 14, Maeng).
Examiner’s Notes: Claim 11 recites “wherein normal token exchange data particularly comprise: token reference(s) of the old digital currency token(s); digital currency value(s) of the old digital currency token(s); token reference(s) of the new digital currency token(s) digital currency value(s) of the new digital currency token(s); and one or more signatures of the old digital currency token(s); and/or wherein crisis token exchange data particularly comprise: crisis token reference(s) of the new digital currency token(s); digital currency value(s) of the new digital currency token(s); and one or more crisis signatures of the old digital currency token(s).” These limitations describe the characteristics of normal token exchange data and crisis token exchange data, while the particular characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any positively recited steps or functions. Therefore, these limitations recite nonfunctional descriptive material. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Conclusion
The prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Kurian et al. (US 20240169332 A1) discloses facilitating offline processing of electronic transactions at an ATM when the ATM does not support a network connection.
Trinder (US 20230169477 A1) discloses that offline in-person monetary transfer similar to cash facilitates the exchange of digital cash, data or other currencies between 2-people in-person and in-close-proximity offline without the need to share any personal or private information. No server connection or internet is required at the time of transfer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUNLING DING whose telephone number is (571)270-3605. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 7:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an 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, Neha Patel, can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/CHUNLING DING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights