DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on 02/12/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 8 and 15):
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
establish an event stream between the computing device and a client device in response to receiving a start session request, (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
wherein the event stream includes at least a payment event; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
identify the payment event within the event stream, the payment event comprising a purchase amount; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
transmit, in response to identifying the payment event, a digital currency transfer corresponding to the purchase amount to a digital currency network. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
Additional dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 8 and 15):
A system, comprising: a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least:
…a client device
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium, comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to at least:
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-5, 7, 8-12, and 14-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurennykh et al. (US 11,315,113 B1) hereinafter KURENNYKH.
Claims 1, 8, 15:
KURENNYKH as shown below discloses the following limitations:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; (see at least Figure 9 as well as associated and related text)
machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least: (see at least Figure 9 as well as associated and related text)
establish an event stream between the computing device and a client device in response to receiving a start session request, (see at least column 4, lines 4-18)
wherein the event stream includes at least a payment event; (see at least column 4, lines 4-18; column 8, line 29)
identify the payment event within the event stream, the payment event comprising a purchase amount; (see at least column 2, lines 49-67; column 8, line 29)
transmit, in response to identifying the payment event, a digital currency transfer corresponding to the purchase amount to a digital currency network. (see at least column 4, line 7; column 1, lines 52, 58, 61, 65; column 4, line 50)
KURENNYKH does not specifically disclose each of the above limitations within a single embodiment. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of KURENNYKH because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2, 9, 16:
The combination of KURENNYKH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. KURENNYKH further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the machine-readable instructions that transmit the digital currency transfer, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least:
debit the purchase amount from a payor funding source;
credit a payor wallet capable of holding a central bank digital currency (CBDC) with a first CBDC amount, wherein the first CBDC amount is equivalent to the purchase amount and the payor wallet being identifiable by a payor wallet address;
generate a first CBDC transfer from the payor wallet address to a payee wallet address for the first CBDC amount.
See at least column 4, line 7; column 1, lines 52, 58, 61, 65; column 4, line 50; column 12, lines 37-41.
Claims 3, 10, 17:
The combination of KURENNYKH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. KURENNYKH further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the payor wallet is unique to an account holder that controls the payor funding source.
See at least column 7, line 61 to column 8, line 10.
Claims 4, 11, 18:
The combination of KURENNYKH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. KURENNYKH further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the payment event is a first payment event, and wherein the purchase amount is a first purchase amount, and wherein the machine-readable instructions that identify the first payment event, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least:
identify a second payment event, the second payment event comprising a second purchase amount, wherein the second purchase amount is representative of a non-digital currency.
See at least column 10, line 39; column 10, lines 56-67.
Claims 5, 12, 19:
The combination of KURENNYKH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. KURENNYKH further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the machine-readable instructions that identify the second payment event, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least:
debit the second purchase amount from a payor funding source; credit a payor wallet with a CBDC amount, wherein the CBDC amount is equivalent to the second purchase amount;
generate a second transfer from a payor wallet address to a payee wallet address for the CBDC amount; transmit the second transfer to the digital currency network.
See at least column 4, line 7; column 1, lines 52, 58, 61, 65; column 4, line 50; column 12, lines 37-41.
Claims 7, 14:
The combination of KURENNYKH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. KURENNYKH further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the machine-readable instructions that identify the payment event, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least iterate through each event on the event stream to identify the payment event.
See at least column 10, line 39; column 10, lines 56-67;column 4, line 7; column 1, lines 52, 58, 61, 65; column 4, line 50; column 12, lines 37-41.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KURENNYKH and further in view of Examiner’s OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Claims 6, 13, 20:
The combination of KURENNYKH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. KURENNYKH does not specifically disclose wherein the payment event is placed on the event stream by an internet-of-things (IoT) device. However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known in the online transactional arts to utilize inter-of-things devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of KURENNYKH with the technique of iot devices because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
World Bank Group. “CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY.” (NOVEMBER 2021). Retrieved online 09/13/2024. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/965451638867832702/pdf/Central-Bank-Digital-Currency-A-Payments-Perspective.pdf
Relevancy: “ Several waves of innovations and accompanying reforms have, over time, regularly changed the landscape of national payments system (NPS) in virtually every country in the world. A topic now grabbing widespread attention is crypto-assets, investments in digital currencies, and the related concept of stablecoins, which are digital currencies whose value are pegged to an underlying national currency issued by a central bank. These innovations are forcing us to revisit the very definition of money and currency as an exchange of value, terms we had for decades taken for granted. A few central banks are considering or beginning the process of issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC). From design to implementation, researchers are looking at implications for the financial system, including for policy, regulation, and oversight, plus effects on the economy more broadly.” (Abstract/Introduction)
World Bank Group. “FAST PAYMENT SYSTEMS.” (SEPTEMBER 2021). Retrieved online 09/13/2024. https://fastpayments.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/Fast%20Payment%20Flagship_Final_Nov%201.pdf
Relevancy: “ For more than two decades, the World Bank has guided and supported jurisdictions as they develop a safe, reliable, and efficient National Payments System (NPS). In this context, the World Bank has been monitoring developments in fast payments and has undertaken a detailed study of fast payment implementations across the world. The policy toolkit provides guidance on the aspects that authorities need to consider when developing a Fast Payment System (FPS) and incorporating the same in their NPS reform agenda. The toolkit is based on the analysis of multiple FPS implementations across the world.” (Abstract/Introduction))
McKinsey and Company. “The 2022 McKinsey Global Payments Report.” (October 2022). Retrieved online 09/13/2024. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/financial%20services/our%20insights/the%202022%20mckinsey%20global%20payments%20report/the-2022-mckinsey-global-payments-report.pdf
Relevancy: “ In a period of ongoing macroeconomic and geopolitical upheaval, the global payments ecosystem is once again demonstrating resilience. In the previous McKinsey Global Payments Report, we described an annual decline in revenues for 2020, the first since 2009.¹ That decline, coming during the early stages of the pandemic, was less pronounced than anticipated.” (Abstract/Introduction)
Foreign Art:
CADET CARMELLE et al. “METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROVIDING A DIGITAL CURRENCY PAYMENT AND WALLET SOLUTION WITH HYBRID BLOCKCHAIN DESIGN.” (WO 2021/195357 A1)
Relevancy: “A method for implementing, within a blockchain platform having at least one anti-money laundering rule, pseudo-anonymous and confidential transaction processing for digital currency issued by a central bank includes receiving, by a digital wallet application executing on a computing device of a first user, from a server maintained by a central bank and maintaining a private blockchain network with at least one AML rule, an identification of a digital wallet provisioned for the first user. The method includes executing, by the digital wallet application, at least one transaction involving digital currency of the first user. The method includes retrieving, by the server, an enumeration of flagged transactions executed by the digital wallet application in association with the digital wallet and recorded in the private blockchain network, the enumeration of flagged transactions identifying transactions that violate the at least one AML rule and excluding the encrypted data.” (Abstract/Introduction)
KIKINIS DAN et al. “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SECURE STORAGE OF DIGITAL ASSETS TO FACILITATE ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS.” (WO 2020/014551 A1)
Relevancy: “ A system, computer implemented method, and computer readable storage media containing encoded instructions for transacting multiple payment token on multiple blockchains is disclosed. The system has at least one processor with memory, non-volatile storage for storing software including but not limited to operating system, applications, drivers, input/output devices, user interfaces, and communication and network devices for processing a crypto-currency transaction using a cold storage unit. The application software allowing to perform the steps of accepting a type of digital asset into the cold-storage unit issuance of a token representing said digital asset on a blockchain database. Once the token has been exchanged with another party in a transaction, the holder of the token can present the token to the cold storage unit for delivery of the digital asset.” (Abstract/Introduction)
LU FRANK YIFAN CHEN. “SECURE TRANSACTION METHOD BASED ON BLOCK CHAIN, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, SYSTEM, AND STORAGE MEDIUM.” (WO 2018/137316 A1)
Relevancy: “Disclosed are a secure transaction method based on a block chain, an electronic device, a system, and a storage medium. The method comprises: a supervisor writing a digital certificate into a smart contract of a block chain corresponding to an asset type needing to be supervised for all the institutions having asset accounts under the asset type to obtain, by means of the digital certificate, a first public key of the supervisor (S1) so as to generate an additive homomorphic secret key for homomorphic encryption of the balances of the asset accounts; and when the supervisor checks the balance of a new account of a transaction party, obtaining a public key in a public and private key group corresponding to the new account, based on a supervision private key corresponding to the supervisor and a pre-determined secret key exchange protocol, and the public key in the public and private key group, generating the additive homomorphic secret key according to the secret key exchange protocol, and using the generated additive homomorphic secret key to decrypt the encrypted balance of the new account (S4).” (Abstract/Introduction)
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)
Prosecution Insights