DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the Application filed February 13, 2026. Claims 1-18 are pending in this case.
Priority
The present U.S. Utility Patent Application claims priority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 120 as a continuation of U.S. Utility Patent Application No. 17/561,495, entitled "SECURE AND TRUSTED CONVEYANCE FROM USER COMPUTING DEVICE TO MERCHANT COMPUTING ENTITY," filed December 23, 2021, which claims priority as a continuation of U.S. Utility Patent Application No. 16/376,911, entitled "SECURE AND TRUSTED DATA COMMUNICATION SYSTEM," filed April 05, 2019, now U.S. Patent No. 11,431,683 issued on August 30, 2022, which claims priority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/672,652, entitled "OPEN CRYPTOCURRENCY ACCEPTANCE NETWORK AND MOBILE APPLICATION FOR SPENDING CRYPTOCURRENCY," filed May 17, 2018.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 10-18 are directed to a computer-readable storage media, and in this case recite an abstract idea, while also separately rejected below as not falling within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite secure data conveyance. Specifically, the claims recite obtaining cryptocurrency, obtaining an indication to initiate a conveyance, determining to use all or part of the cryptocurrency to execute the conveyance, verifying the cryptocurrency, converting the cryptocurrency to a desired format, facilitating the conveyance or transaction. The claims are grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity because the steps recited describe the fundamental economic practice of secure data conveyance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP 2106).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as the multiple memories and data conveyance device, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the multiple memories and data conveyance device perform the steps or functions of secure data conveyance. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of using multiple memories and data conveyance device to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of secure data conveyance. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, multiple memories and data conveyance device perform the steps or functions of obtaining cryptocurrency, obtaining an indication to initiate a conveyance, determining to use all or part of the cryptocurrency to execute the conveyance, verifying the cryptocurrency, converting the cryptocurrency to a desired format, facilitating the conveyance or transaction. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 further describe the abstract idea of secure data conveyance. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claims 10-18 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 10-18 are directed to a transitory signal as the recite a "computer-readable memory". As recited, the "computer-readable memory" is broad enough to read on a transitory signal.
Transitory signals are defined according to the "Microsoft Press Dictionary Definition" or "IEEE Definition". According to MPEP § 2106, however, there are four categories of invention: process, machine, article of manufacture or composition of matter. Therefore, as "transitory signals" are neither a category of invention nor a subset of one of the categories it does not represent patent eligible subject matter. In re Nuijten, Docket no. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) (slip. op. at 18).n 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, 5-6, 9-11, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dale et al (US 2014/0180897), in view of Grassadonia et al (US 10,055,715).
Regarding claims 1 and 10 –
Dale discloses obtaining, by a secure data conveyance device of a secure and trusted data communication, first cryptocurrency from a user computing device of the secure and trusted data communication; (par 22, 24, 26, 30, 35, 55, 57-58, 68, 70-71, 124, Fig7, Fig8)
obtaining, by the secure data conveyance device, an indication to initiate a conveyance between the user computing device and a target computing entity of the secure and trusted data communication; (par 31, 35, 72)
determining, by the secure data conveyance device, to use at least a portion of the first cryptocurrency to execute the conveyance based on the indication; (par 31, 35, 72)
verifying, by the secure data conveyance device, the at least the portion of the first cryptocurrency via a blockchain consensus protocol associated with the on-chain transaction to produce at least a portion of a verified data object; (par 130-132)
converting, by the secure data conveyance device, the at least the portion of the verified data object into a desired format to produce converted data, wherein the desired format is indicated by the target computing entity. (par 130-132)
Grassadonia discloses, as Dale does not specifically disclose, wherein the transaction is an on-chain transaction, (col 4 ln 42-56) and
facilitating, by the secure data conveyance device, the conveyance between the user computing device and the target computing entity by providing the converted data to the target computing entity in an off-chain transaction. (col 4 ln 57- col 5 ln 6)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Dale with Grassadonia for amore user friendly payment form.
Regarding claims 2 and 11 –
Grassadonia discloses storing, by the secure data conveyance device, the first cryptocurrency in a data repository associated with the user computing device. (col 7 ln 5-10, col 8 ln 5-10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Dale with Grassadonia for a more user friendly payment form.
Regarding claims 5 and 14 -
Dale discloses wherein the verifying the at least the portion of the first cryptocurrency further comprises:
when a desired number of confirmations occurs via the blockchain consensus protocol; (par 130-132)
determining, by the secure data conveyance device, that the first cryptocurrency has been securely received via the on-chain transaction; (par 130-132)
establishing, by the secure data conveyance device, the first cryptocurrency as the verified data object; (par 130-132) and
establishing, by the secure data conveyance device, the at least the portion of the first cryptocurrency as the at least the portion of the verified data object. (par 130-132)
Regarding claims 6 and 15 -
Dale discloses herein the converting the at least the portion of the verified data object into the desired format to produce the converted data comprises:
connecting, by the secure data conveyance device, to a data exchange entity; (par 57)
providing, by the secure data conveyance device, the at least the portion of the verified data object to the data exchange entity to convert the at least the portion of the verified data object into the desired format to produce the converted data object; (par 130-132) and
when the data exchange entity has converted the at least the portion of the verified data object into the desired format to produce the converted data object:, obtaining, by the secure data conveyance device, the converted data object from the data exchange entity. (par 130-132)
Regarding claims 9 and 18 –
Dale discloses obtaining, by the secure data conveyance device, a second indication to initiate a second conveyance between the user computing device and a second target computing entity of the secure and trusted data communication; (par 22, 24, 26, 30, 35, 55, 57-58, 68, 70-71, 124, Fig7, Fig8)
determining, by the secure data conveyance device, to use a second portion of the first cryptocurrency to execute the second conveyance based on the second indication; (par 31, 35, 72)
determining, by the secure data conveyance device, that the second portion of the first cryptocurrency is stored as a second portion of the verified object; (par 31, 35, 72)
converting, by the secure data conveyance device, the second portion of the verified data object into a second desired format to produce second converted data, wherein the second desired format is indicated by the second target computing entity; (par 130-132) and
Grassadonia discloses, as Dale does not specifically disclose,
facilitating, by the secure data conveyance device, the second conveyance between the user computing device and the second target computing entity by providing the second converted data to the second target computing entity in second off-chain transaction. (col 4 ln 57- col 5 ln 6)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Dale with Grassadonia for a more user friendly payment form.
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 12-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dale et al (US 2014/0180897), in view of Grassadonia et al (US 10,055,715) and further in view of Cheline et al (US 2003/0055990)
Regarding claims 3 and 12 -
Cheline discloses wherein the indication to initiate the conveyance comprises a one-time use code associated with the target computing entity. (par 73)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Dale and Grassadonia with the one-time code of Cheline for greater transaction security.
Regarding claims 4 and 13 -
Dale discloses wherein the indication to initiate the conveyance further comprises one or more of:
conveyance preferences of the user computing device; (par 125-126)
conveyance parameters associated with one or more of the target computing entity and the conveyance; (par 125-126) and
a conveyance request. (par 125-126)
Regarding claims 7 and 16 –
Cheline discloses providing, by the secure data conveyance device, the converted data object to a trusted stored value account (SVA) computing device, wherein the trusted SVA computing device converts the converted data object into an SVA for use by the target computing entity, wherein the target computing entity is associated with the trusted SVA computing device; (par 34-35) and
obtaining, by the secure data conveyance device, the SVA from the trusted SVA computing device. (par 34-35)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Dale and Grassadonia with the trusted device of Cheline for greater transaction security.
Regarding claims 8 and 17 –
Cheline discloses providing the converted data to the target computing entity in the off-chain transaction comprises: providing, by the secure data conveyance device, the SVA to the user computing device, wherein the user computing device is operable to provide the SVA to the target computing entity as the converted data; or providing, by the secure data conveyance device, the SVA to the target computing entity as the converted data. (par 34-35)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Dale and Grassadonia with the trusted device of Cheline for greater transaction security.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thackston (US 2008/0071674) discloses a system and method for on-line commerce operations including payment transactions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTINA OWEN SHERR whose telephone number is (571)272-6711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/Cristina Owen Sherr/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights