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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 12-21, 26-28 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. On 1/21/26, Applicant amended the claims. And, Applicant’s remarks address these amended features. However, see the new 103 with the new citations and motivations and explanations that address the new features.
Also, the new dependent claims are rejected below.
Also, the 7/9/24 amendments and remarks are considered to pass 101. The multiple different GUIs with data transfer are considered to pass 101 as noted in the 7/8/24 interview.
Also, since the Applicant was given the opportunity, with the 1/25/23 submission, and has failed to traverse the Examiner's assertion of Official Notice, the common knowledge or well known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (see MPEP 2144.03.C). Applicant did not present any evidence or arguments concerning Official Notice.
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, 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, 7-9, 12-14, 16-19, 27, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthugopalakrishnan (20120066047) hereinafter referred to as “Muth” in view of Alspach (20060053056) in view of Ludemann (20120254042).
Claims 1, 12, 16. Muth discloses a system comprising: one or more processors; and memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions that (Fig. 1), when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the system to:
generate a first graphical user interface (GUI) comprising one or more user input objects (Figs. 4, 5; [110-114]);
cause a mobile device of an account holder of an account to display the first GUI (Figs. 4, 5; [110-114]; note can be a mobile device at [58]);
receive, via the first GUI, a selection of at least a first user input object of the one or more user input objects (Figs. 4, 5; [110-114]; note that the GUI goes from Fig. 4 to Fig. 5 after the selection);
responsive to receiving the selection (Figs. 4, 5; [110-114]; note that the GUI goes from Fig. 4 to Fig. 5 after the selection so then Fig. 5 is displayed).
Muth further discloses receive, at a communication interface from the mobile device of the account holder via a network and, one or more sets of coupon data associated with one or more discounts (see mobile at [70] with account identifier, see account identifier and coupon and phone at [37]), wherein each of the one or more sets of coupon data comprises a merchant name and a transaction limit on a number of times a coupon is permitted to be used by the account holder (see coupon and limit at [41, 55, 92]; see retailer’s loyalty account/program at [68] for identifying merchant, also retailer is identified at [80] and [103]; also for merchant name see Fig. 4, Muth Fig. 4 clearly shows coupons and that the coupons have terms and that the terms include that the coupons only work at “Participating Retailers” such as one coupons 1 “Participating Retailers:Story Y, Store Z” or on coupon 2 “Participating Retailers: Tie Outlet” or on coupon 3 “Participating Retailers: Grocer A, Grocer B, Grocer C” or on coupon 4 “Participating Retailers: Eat More Dinery”).
Muth does not explicitly disclose a communication interface of a financial institution. However, Muth discloses the preceding and that a card can be used for the transaction that is linked to an account or credit card [69]. And, Alspach discloses merchants providing transaction data to a financial institution and automatic application of valid coupon/offer discounts to transaction data by the financial institution (Alspach [0186]; also note Alspach’s uses a bank/credit card at [185]). And, Alspach shows an Issuer as a Financial Institution and the Issuer/financial institution providing discount in real-time at time of purchase (Issuer and all of [180-183], note “[183]…The discount amount may be credited at any time before, during, or after the transaction.” and Figs. 8, 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Alspach’s card for transactions and financial institution to Muth’s card for transactions and applying discounts/coupons/offers. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better apply discounts/coupons/offers.
Muth does not explicitly disclose as distributed by a load balancer or wherein the load balancer is configured to (i) monitor access to various services of the financial institution, and (ii) distribute workload between a backend system and the mobile device. However, Muth discloses coupon provider/advertiser [6, 46] and client server architecture [44]. And, as shown above, Alspach renders obvious the bank/financial institution. And, Ludemann discloses client server architecture and information request and authorization (Abstract) and also presenting ads[22] and mobile devices and load balancing ([57, 60] and also [5]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Ludemann’s client server architecture and load balancing for info request and ads to Muth’s client server architecture and info request and ads/coupons. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better use network architecture to manage info requests.
Muth further discloses automatically cause the mobile device to direct the account holder from the first GUI to a second system/the actual user account (Figs. 4, 5; [110-114]; note that [110-114] describes the saving to the user account, note the user account can be a variety of different user accounts as seen in Fig. 5).
Muth further discloses receive, via the second system/the actual user account, authorization data (Fig. 5 shows the authorization or account identifier data that is transferred to the selected user account for saving to the that user account, also see [110-114]).
While Muth discloses a second system/the actual user account, Muth does not explicitly disclose a second GUI at the second system/the actual user account. However, as shown above, Muth discloses saving the coupon from the first GUI to the actual user account (Figs. 4, 5 and [110-114]). And, Muth discloses GUIs operated by the mobile device for using the system, Figs. 4, 5. And, Muth discloses a variety of accounts in Fig. 5. And, Muth discloses accessing the already saved coupons via the user account in order to print them ([99], “[99]… if a user has already saved the coupon offer to her account, the user may be allowed to print a coupon for the coupon offer”). And, Alspach discloses a user account and the user accessing their account to view rewards online at [78] and a variety of forms of user accounts [71, 69] and cell phones for accessing the accounts [69] and that the accounts can be accessed by the users via websites and interfaces [26] or via the Internet [78]. And, Alspach discloses that rewards or marketing offers can be coupons or points [66, 53]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Alspach’s GUI/interface for accessing marketing offers associated with the user account to Muth’s user saving the marketing offer/coupon to the user account and later accessing the coupons to view and print. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better allow the user to use, access, view the account where they have saved the marketing offers/coupons.
Muth further discloses responsive to receiving the authorization data (Figs. 4, 5 and [110-114] disclose saving to the user account and the variety of types of accounts that can be saved to in Fig. 5).
In regards to the following features and as note in 10/11/24 Applicant Remarks, Examiner notes Applicant Spec at [39, 82, 91, 99, 106]. Examiner notes Applicant Spec at “[82]… Authorization data may include a user name, a password, an account number associated with an account at financial institution 101, or other information that identifies account holder 106 to financial institution 101”. Muth further discloses associate the one or more sets of coupon data with the account, the authorization data comprising information that identifies the account holder and associates the account hold with the account (see mobile at [70] with account identifier, see account identifier and coupon and phone at [37]) and provides the account holder with access to the account(Fig. 2, [9, 51] shows linking account to identifiers; Fig. 5, [12] shows identifiers of account reading on Applicant’s identifiers; [69] further showing identifiers that can access the account).
Muth further discloses determine a match between the authorization data and account information of an account associated with the account holder (see mobile at [70] with account identifier, see account identifier and coupon and phone at [37]; also see unique user data at [51]).
For the following features, based on Applicant’s Remarks dates 5/3/23 on page 18, Examiner notes Applicant Spec at [90-97, 93]. Muth further discloses receive, from one or more merchants, transaction data relating to one or more transactions associated with the account that have been submitted for settlement, the transaction data comprising i) one or more merchant identifiers for the one or more transactions (Muth at Fig. 4 shows that the coupons have specific terms and Retailers that identified, and Muth at [42] shows automatic coupon/discount redemption/application and verifying that the coupon terms are valid to that transaction before applying it [123]; also note retailer’s loyalty account/program at [68] for identifying merchant, also retailer is identified at [80] and [103]).
Muth does not explicitly disclose transaction data that have been submitted to the financial institution for settlement. However, Muth discloses the preceding and that a card can be used for the transaction that is linked to an account or credit card [69]. And, Alspach discloses merchants providing transaction data to a financial institution and automatic application of valid coupon/offer discounts to transaction data by the financial institution (Alspach [0186]; also note Alspach’s uses a bank/credit card at [185]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Alspach’s card for transactions and financial institution automatically applying and settling discounts/coupons/offers to Muth’s card for transactions and automatically applying discounts/coupons/offers. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better automatically apply discounts/coupons/offers.
Muth further discloses and ii) one or more transaction dates for the one or more transactions (“[123]… Coupon offers may no longer be valid for a number of reasons, including the expiration of the time period during which the provider specified the offer to be valid and the rescission of the offer. In an embodiment, retailers check the terms of a coupon offer to ensure validity before allowing a user to redeem the offer.” which is interpreted to mean that the date/time at time of purchase is confirmed to be valid in regards to the expiration date/time of the coupon in question).
Muth further discloses identify the account from the transaction data received from the one or more merchants ([39]);
access the account of the account holder ([39]);
determine whether the account has been linked to any coupon data ([39]).
Muth further discloses when the account has been linked to at least a first set of coupon data of the one or more sets of coupon data, compare the first set of coupon data with the transaction data to determine whether a merchant name associated with the first set of coupon data at least partially matches a merchant identifier of the transaction data (see retailer’s loyalty account/program at [68] for identifying merchant, also retailer is identified at [80] and [103]) and to determine whether a transaction location in the transaction data matches a geographic restriction from the first set of coupon data (see deny and coupon and geographic at [55]; see equal geographic distribution and limit to certain regional retailer at [103]; see offer and geographic restrictions at [113]);
determine whether the merchant name associated with the first set of coupon data at least partially matches the merchant identifier of the transaction data (see retailer’s loyalty account/program at [68] for identifying merchant, also retailer is identified at [80] and [103]; also see Figs. 4, 5 with particular merchant/retailer limitations and identifiers, also see [85-87, 123] for only redeeming coupons at time of checkout that meet validity and transaction information).
Also, Muth Fig. 4 clearly shows coupons and that the coupons have terms and that the terms include that the coupons only work at “Participating Retailers” such as one coupons 1 “Participating Retailers:Story Y, Store Z” or on coupon 2 “Participating Retailers: Tie Outlet” or on coupon 3 “Participating Retailers: Grocer A, Grocer B, Grocer C” or on coupon 4 “Participating Retailers: Eat More Dinery”. And, Muth states these text on the coupon are the terms of the offer (“[3]… A coupon often takes a "hard copy" form, such as a paper certificate, printed on which are images and/or text describing terms of the offer.”). And, the system analyzes the transactions to see when the terms apply or not (“[85]… The central server may then analyze the terms of each coupon offer to determine if any of the coupon offers may be applied to the transaction.”; [86]). And, the retailer has to approve the coupons for use ([0107]; “[0123]… In an embodiment, retailers check the terms of a coupon offer to ensure validity before allowing a user to redeem the offer. The retailer may furthermore pre-emotively disassociate invalid offers from identifiers.”). And, the particular retailer is clearly identified from the retailer names in Fig. 4 and also with identifiers (“[68]… In the latter case, for instance, account identifier 132 may have been created to identify the retailer's loyalty account”). And, only retailer appropriate coupons are accepted (“[80]… For example, the coupon distribution server may determine that the coupon offer is not accepted by the retailer with which a certain account identifier was established, and thus not associate the coupon offer with that identifier.”). And, Muth discloses that only certain retailers are identified for a particular coupons or loyalty accounts or that certain retailers are blocked from using particular coupons (“[103]… Using such a parameter, the coupon provider may, for example, limit the number of coupons that may be applied to loyalty card identifiers of a certain regional retailer. Or, by specifying a distribution limit of zero for a certain types of loyalty cards, the coupon provider may effectively block access to the coupon for certain retailers. In an embodiment, per-identifier type distribution limits may be assumed to be zero unless a coupon provider explicitly specifies a distribution parameter that targets an identifier type.”). Hence, the retailer is identified from the coupon and compared to the transaction data to see if that retailer is allowed or within the distribution limit or not.
So, Murth clearly with Fig. 4 identifies participating retailers as coupon terms and then checks the coupon terms with each transaction. Or, Muth clearly has distribution limits relevant to particular coupons and retailers that are checked with each transaction. Hence, Muth clearly discloses these features.
Muth further discloses compare an expiration date from the first set of coupon data with the one or more transaction dates to determine whether the first set of coupon data is expired (“[123]… Coupon offers may no longer be valid for a number of reasons, including the expiration of the time period during which the provider specified the offer to be valid and the rescission of the offer. In an embodiment, retailers check the terms of a coupon offer to ensure validity before allowing a user to redeem the offer.” which is interpreted to mean that the date/time at time of purchase is confirmed to be valid in regards to the expiration date/time of the coupon in question). Muth does not explicitly disclose that the expiration data is compared at a financial institute related to settlement. However, Alspach discloses a merchant or financial institute settling ([87]), a financial institute settling (claim 29), date of purchase (claim 18), and checking discount criteria (claim 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Alspach’s date/time of transaction and Alspach’s discount criteria and financial institute/3rd party settling discounts based on discount criteria to Muth’s coupons and confirming the coupons are not expired for that particular transaction so that a financial institute/3rd party can do the confirming. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better confirm the coupon is validly used.
Muth further discloses responsive to determining the merchant name associated with the first set of coupon data at least partially matches the merchant identifier of the transaction data (see retailer’s loyalty account/program at [68] for identifying merchant, also retailer is identified at [80] and [103]; also see Figs. 4, 5 with particular merchant/retailer limitations and identifiers, also see [85-87, 123] for only redeeming coupons at time of checkout that meet validity and transaction information) and the first set of coupon data is not expired (“[123]… Coupon offers may no longer be valid for a number of reasons, including the expiration of the time period during which the provider specified the offer to be valid and the rescission of the offer. In an embodiment, retailers check the terms of a coupon offer to ensure validity before allowing a user to redeem the offer.” which is interpreted to mean that the date/time at time of purchase is confirmed to be valid in regards to the expiration date/time of the coupon in question), and a retailer generate a reduced transaction amount in real-time by reducing a transaction amount based on a discount associated with the first set of coupon data of the one or more sets of coupon data (see retailer and reduce during the transaction itself at the POS at [85, 86]; see retailer’s loyalty account/program at [68] for identifying merchant, also retailer is identified at [80] and [103]; also see redeem/redemption at [39]).
While Muth discloses a central server or a retailer reducing the transaction by the coupon in real-time at the POS during the transaction [85, 86], Muth does not explicitly disclose that a financial institution performs the reduction in real-time at the POS. Examiner notes that Applicant Spec shows financial institution interpreted as “[39]… A financial institution may be, for example, a bank, other type of financial institution, including a credit card provider, for example, or any other entity that offers accounts to customers.”. Applicant Spec shows settlement later [77]. And, Applicant Spec at [86-95] shows discount provided by financial institution in real-time at time of purchase. And, Alspach shows an Issuer as a Financial Institution and the Issuer/financial institution providing discount in real-time at time of purchase (Issuer and all of [180-183], note “[183]…The discount amount may be credited at any time before, during, or after the transaction.” and Figs. 8, 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Alspach’s crediting a discount during the transaction by a financial institution to Muth’s crediting a discount by a central server. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better credit and settle discounts. Examiner notes that this combination with Alspach showing the financial institution providing the credit and in real-time applies to all the settlement/crediting features of the claim.
Muth further discloses charge a payment card of the account holder by the reduced transaction amount in real-time (see credit card at [39], also see retailer and reduce at [85, 86]).
Muth further discloses responsive to determining the merchant name associated with the first set of coupon data does not at least partially match the merchant identifier of the transaction data or the first set of coupon data is not expired, charge the payment card of the account holder by a full transaction amount in real-time (Muth further discloses only applying the coupon if the coupon is found applicable [42] and also “[85]… The central server may then analyze the terms of each coupon offer to determine if any of the coupon offers may be applied to the transaction” and only applying coupons to the current transaction that meet all the coupon terms [85], and that only “[86]… applicable coupon offers” are applied, and also “[123]… In an embodiment, retailers check the terms of a coupon offer to ensure validity before allowing a user to redeem the offer”; and as shown above, Figs. 4, 5 show example of coupon terms and this includes a matching retailer/merchant; Hence, Muth discloses only reducing the amount if the merchant matches and the coupon is valid and found to be applicable, so, inherently, if the coupon is not found applicable, the amount is not reduced.; also in regards to coupon data not expired, see Muth at “[123]… Coupon offers may no longer be valid for a number of reasons, including the expiration of the time period during which the provider specified the offer to be valid and the rescission of the offer. In an embodiment, retailers check the terms of a coupon offer to ensure validity before allowing a user to redeem the offer.” which is interpreted to mean that the date/time at time of purchase is confirmed to be valid in regards to the expiration date/time of the coupon in question).
In further regards to claim 12, receive, Muth discloses from a merchant system, first transaction data relating to a first transaction associated with the first financial account, the first transaction data comprising a merchant identifier, a transaction amount, and a first financial account identifier (see retailer’s loyalty account/program at [68] for identifying merchant, also retailer is identified at [80] and [103]; for amount see [86]; for financial account id see card at [39, 40, 69] ); identify the first financial account from the first financial account identifier (for financial account id see card at [39, 40, 69]).
Also in further regards to claim 12, Muth further discloses to determine whether the transaction amount satisfies a minimum purchase amount associated with the coupon data (for min purchase amount see Fig. 4 with item 414 and min price; also see [123] and checking offer is valid) and the transaction data comprises a transaction amount for one of the transactions ([86]).
In regards to the following features and as note in 10/11/24 Applicant Remarks, Examiner notes Applicant Spec at [39, 82, 91, 99, 106]. In further regards to claim 12, receive, via the second GUI, user input data comprising account login information (Fig. 2, [9, 51] shows linking account to identifiers; Fig. 5, [12] shows identifiers of account reading on Applicant’s identifiers; [69] further showing identifiers that can access the account). In further regards to claims 16, receive, via the second GUI, user input data that provides the account holder with access to the account (Fig. 2, [9, 51] shows linking account to identifiers; Fig. 5, [12] shows identifiers of account reading on Applicant’s identifiers; [69] further showing identifiers that can access the account). Alternatively, while Muth discloses user/account identifiers, Muth does not explicitly state that they are user for login. However, Alspach discloses consumer/user ID and authorization/access code and PIN [50] and also name [51]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Alspach’s PIN/passcode as consumer ID to Muth’s account IDs. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better identify the user and provide access to the account/services.
In further regards to claims 12, 16, Muth further discloses receive…user input data (Figs. 4, 5 and [110-114] where the user input data is the account selected in Fig. 5 so this data of the actual account identifier goes to the user identified account where the coupon will be saved); responsive to receiving the user input data (Figs. 4, 5 and [110-114] where the user input data is the account selected in Fig. 5 so this data of the actual account identifier goes to the user identified account where the coupon will be saved).
In further regards to claim 16, Muth discloses whether a first transaction limit associated with the coupon has been met (see coupon and limit at [41, 55, 92]);
when the first transaction limit has been met, delete the coupon data from the identified first financial account (see coupon and limit at [41, 55, 92]; see removed and coupon at [123, 82, 99, 118]); and when the first transaction limit has not been met, determine whether the first financial account was previously linked to any coupon data by identifying the coupon data in a database and reduce the first transaction limit by one increment (see coupon and limit at [41, 55, 92]). Muth also further discloses remove the coupon data from the database and unlink the coupon data from the first financial account to prevent reuse of the first coupon (see coupon and limit at [41, 55, 92]; see removed and coupon at [123, 82, 99, 118]; see remove the coupon from the account after coupon is used once so coupon is not reused at [99]).
Claim 2. Muth further discloses the system of claim 1, Muth further discloses wherein the one or more sets of coupon data comprises a threshold value comprising a minimum purchase amount and the one or more processors are configured to determine whether a qualifying transaction has occurred based on the threshold value (for min purchase amount see Fig. 4 with item 414 and min price; also see [123] and checking offer is valid) and the transaction data comprises a transaction amount for one of the transactions ([86]).
Claim 4. Muth does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the mobile device captures the one or more sets of coupon data by scanning a bar code on a paper coupon. However, Muth discloses link coupons and mobile device (see mobile at [70] with account identifier, see account identifier and coupon and phone at [37]) and coupons with bar code [50, 72] and scanning [69, 70]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Muth’s scanning coupon barcodes to Muth’s linking coupons to a mobile device. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better link coupons.
Claim 7. Muth further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sets of coupon data comprises an image of a coupon captured by the mobile device, and wherein the memory storing further instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the system to recognize the coupon data from the image of the coupon (see phone at [40, 58], see “[70]…a mobile phone… allowing the retailer to scan the device, or allowing the retailer to see or scan information displayed by the device”).
Claim 8. Muth further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein determining whether the account has been linked to any coupon data further comprises:
determining whether the transaction limit associated with the first set of coupon data has been met (see coupon and limit at [41, 55, 92]);
when the transaction limit has been met, deleting the first set of coupon data from the account and determining that the account has not been linked to the first set of coupon data to prevent the transaction amount from being reduced by the one or more discounts associated with the first set of coupon data (see coupon and limit at [41, 55, 92]; see removed and coupon at [123, 82, 99, 118]); and
when the transaction limit has not been met, determining that the account has been linked to the first set of coupon data and reducing the transaction limit by one increment (see coupon and limit at [41, 55, 92]).
Claim 9. Muth further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the system to compare the one or more sets of coupon data received from the mobile device of the account holder with previously stored coupon data to verify that each of the sets of coupon data is valid before associating a respective set of coupon data with the account ([123]) and responsive to determining at least a first set of coupon data of the one or more sets of coupon data is invalid, communicate a deny to the account holder indicating the first set of coupon data cannot be associated with the account (see deny at [55, 92]; and see “Deny Request” at items 325, 335 of Fig. 3). Muth does not explicitly disclose a notification is sent to deny the request. However, Muth discloses messages and messaging for communications [114, 135]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Muth’s messages/messaging to Muth’s deny a customer request. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better communicate the deny.
Claim 13, 17. Muth further discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the system to: responsive to determining that either (i) the first financial account has not been previously linked to any coupon data or (ii) the merchant name does not match the merchant identifier of the first transaction data within the predetermined threshold, charge the first payment card by the transaction amount to complete the first transaction (see checking coupon is valid at [123]; see citations above for retailer linked coupons).
Claim 14, 18, 19. Muth further discloses the system of claim 12, wherein:
the coupon data directly linked to the first financial account is further associated with at least a second coupon, the coupon data associated with the second coupon comprising a second merchant name, a second discount, and a second transaction limit (see Figs. 4, 5);
determining whether the first account was previously linked to any coupon data further comprises:
identifying the coupon data associated with the second coupon;
determining whether the second transaction limit associated with the coupon data associated with the second coupon has been met;
when the second transaction limit has been met (see coupon and limit at [41, 55, 92]), deleting the coupon data associated with the second coupon from the first financial account (see removed and coupon at [123, 82, 99, 118]); and
when the second transaction limit has not been met, determining that the first financial account has been linked to the coupon data associated with the second coupon and reducing the second transaction limit by one increment (see [41, 55, 92]); and the one or more processors are further configured to cause the system to: responsive to determining that the first financial account has been previously linked to the coupon data associated with the second coupon, compare the coupon data associated with the second coupon with the first transaction data to determine whether the second merchant name is associated with the merchant identifier of the first transaction data (see retailer’s loyalty account/program at [68] for identifying merchant, also retailer is identified at [80] and [103]).
Muth does not explicitly disclose that the account is a financial account. Examiner notes that Applicant Spec shows financial institution interpreted as “[39]… A financial institution may be, for example, a bank, other type of financial institution, including a credit card provider, for example, or any other entity that offers accounts to customers.”.. And, Alspach’s discloses coupons used by the users [63]. And, Alspach shows an Issuer as a Financial Institution and the Issuer/financial institution providing discount in real-time at time of purchase based on a variety of criteria linked or related to the user and his account(s) (Issuer and all of [180-183], note “[183]…The discount amount may be credited at any time before, during, or after the transaction.” and Figs. 8, 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Alspach’s crediting a discount during the transaction to a user linked with a financial institution account to Muth’s crediting a discount during the transaction to a user linked with an account. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better credit and settle discounts.
Claim 27. Muth further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the transaction data further comprises first item data indicating one or more items associated with the one or more transactions, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the system to compare second item data from the first set of coupon data with the first item data from the transaction data to determine whether items purchased match items specified in the first set of coupon data (see certain product at [85] and see particular item at claim 19, so the tracked coupon data includes the certain product or particular item it was for).
Claim 28. Muth further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the system to generate an account statement for the account, the account statement displaying the reduced transaction amount and one or more coupons linked to the account with an indication of whether each of the one or more coupons has been redeemed (see report and redeem and device data at [56]; see report and particular account identifier at [38]; see report coupon usage and identifiers at [66, 87; see report and redeem and user identifier at claim 21, 23, 24).
Claims 6, 15, 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthugopalakrishnan (20120066047) hereinafter referred to as “Muth” in view of Alspach (20060053056) in view of Ludemann (20120254042) in view of Applicant Own Admission (Official Notice).
Claim 6. Muth does not explicitly the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sets of coupon data comprises information derived from optical character recognition on the mobile device. However, Muth discloses link coupons and mobile device (see mobile at [70] with account identifier, see account identifier and coupon and phone at [37]) and coupons with bar code [50, 72] and scanning [69, 70]. And, Examiner takes Official Notice that OCR is an old and well known way to scan data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add OCR to Muth’s scanning coupon barcodes and Muth’s linking coupons to a mobile device. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better link coupon info.
Since the Applicant was given the opportunity, with the 1/25/23 submission, and has failed to traverse the Examiner's assertion of Official Notice, the common knowledge or well known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (see MPEP 2144.03.C). Applicant did not present any evidence or arguments concerning Official Notice.
Claims 15, 20. Muth discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the system to: receive, from a mobile device of an account holder of the first account, geographic location information indicative of1) location where the coupon was distributed (see distribution log and geographic info [52, 53, 55]) and where the coupon was redeemed (see geographic at [113]) and charging the first payment card by the reduced transaction amount [86] and 2) one or more items purchased using the coupon data (see certain product at [85] and see particular item at claim 19, so the tracked coupon data includes the certain product or particular item it was for, and these coupons are also limited to particular locations at [113], so coupon, particular item and location are all known).
Muth further discloses tracking the geographic location information to form tracking information; and provide the tracking information to at least the merchant system ([52, 53, 55]). Muth further discloses Target geography [101] and targeted reward systems [120] and unique user data [51]. Muth does not explicitly disclose tokenizing to make anonymous the geographic info of the user. However,
Examiner takes Official Notice that tokenizing to make anonymous is old and well known. This is a common technique to protect data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add tokenizing to make anonymous to Muth’s tracking geography and targeting based on geography and Muth’s unique user data. One would have been motivated to do this in order to track and target while also protecting data.
Also, Muth does not explicitly disclose that the account is a financial account. Examiner notes that Applicant Spec shows financial institution interpreted as “[39]… A financial institution may be, for example, a bank, other type of financial institution, including a credit card provider, for example, or any other entity that offers accounts to customers.”.. And, Alspach’s discloses coupons used by the users [63]. And, Alspach shows an Issuer as a Financial Institution and the Issuer/financial institution providing discount in real-time at time of purchase based on a variety of criteria linked or related to the user and his account(s) (Issuer and all of [180-183], note “[183]…The discount amount may be credited at any time before, during, or after the transaction.” and Figs. 8, 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Alspach’s crediting a discount during the transaction to a user linked with a financial institution account to Muth’s crediting a discount during the transaction to a user linked with an account. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better credit and settle discounts.
Since the Applicant was given the opportunity, with the 1/25/23 submission, and has failed to traverse the Examiner's assertion of Official Notice, the common knowledge or well known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (see MPEP 2144.03.C). Applicant did not present any evidence or arguments concerning Official Notice.
Claim 21. Muth further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the account comprises one or more of a credit card account [37], a prepaid card account [39], a stored value card account [39], a charge card account [37], a checking account, a rewards account [39], a line of credit account [39, 40], a credit account [39, 40], a mobile device account [40, 69], an account that links to an underlying payment account [39, 40], a mobile commerce account [40, 69], or combinations thereof (multiple account identifiers at [40]). Muth does not explicitly disclose wherein the account comprises one or more of a debit card account, a check card account, a payroll card account, a gift card account, a prepaid credit card account. However, Muth discloses multiple account identifiers at [40]. And, Examiner takes Official Notice that credit cards are commonly linked to banks as are debit cards and other common accounts were old and well known as accounts before Applicant’s Priority Date. Hence, it is obvious that other common accounts or cards could also be used with Muth’s multiple different accounts or cards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add other common account types or cards to Muth’s varied account types and cards and multiple account types and cards. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better use available accounts/cards.
Since the Applicant was given the opportunity, with the 4/18/25 submission, and has failed to traverse the Examiner's assertion of Official Notice, the common knowledge or well known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (see MPEP 2144.03.C). Applicant did not present any evidence or arguments concerning Official Notice.
Claims 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthugopalakrishnan (20120066047) hereinafter referred to as “Muth” in view of Alspach (20060053056) in view of Ludemann (20120254042) in view of Official Notice.
Claim 26. Muth does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the mobile device captures the one or more sets of coupon data by scanning a QR code to link the one or more sets of coupon data to the account.
However, Muth discloses targeting coupons [101] and using bar codes and URLs related to coupons [50]. And, Examiner takes Official Notice that QR codes are an old and well known way to provide a code to provide a URL/link. QR codes have commonly been used to provide website/link information for well before Applicant’s priority date. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add QR codes to Muth’s use of codes and Muth’s coupons with link/URL related info. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better use codes to provide link/URL info.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Aaa) Kendall [27] Carlson [179] disclose OCR and matching “close enough”.
aa) Dersovitz [54], Freed [16], Moreton [107], Owens [71] disclose a bank/financial institution/credit card company automatically applying discounts/coupons to transactions from a merchant/retailer;
Roberts and the other Muthugopalakrishnan prior art disclose relevant features.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTHUR DURAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ARTHUR DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
2/9/26