DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the RCE filed on 05/22/2026, in which claims 2, 4-6, and 29-30 are pending.
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 .
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.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 2, 4-6, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is NOT integrated into a practical application. In particular, the rationale for finding is explained below:
Claims 2, 4-6, and 29-30 are directed to a system/machine, however the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 2, 4-6, and 29-30 are directed to sending and receiving data to purchase/use/display rebates/referrals. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 2, 4-6, and 29-30 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea by analyzing the individual elements and the combination as explained below:
Independent Claim 29, will be the basis of the following 101 analysis.
STEP 1: Claim 29 is directed toward a system, which is a statutory category of invention.
STEP 2a – Prong One: Per MPEP 2106, the claims must be determined if the contain an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 29, recites,
A system comprising: a plurality of network-based computer servers, wherein a rewards-based, universal, integrated code base operates across the plurality of network-based computer servers, wherein the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base is reward-based and universal,
authorized user devices, wherein the authorized user devices are configured with access components enabling access to the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base instantiated across the plurality of network-based computer servers, in which the authorized user devices access multiple platforms associated with the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base;
wherein the plurality of network-based computer servers includes:
an entry point module configured to receive new merchant participants, using merchant computing devices, into the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base, in which, upon signing up to the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base, each merchant agrees to a rebate program by which a referral currency payment is transmitted, from the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base on the plurality of network-based computer servers, to a referring member operating an authorized user device;
a rewards management module configured to facilitate the rebate program by connecting a reader, operating a reader authorized user device, to a merchant operating a merchant authorized user device, wherein the merchant is linked to a comment presented on the reader authorized user device, and wherein a writer, operating a writer authorized user device, that wrote the comment receives the referral currency payment from the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base based on its referral of the reader authorized user device to the merchant, and wherein the multiple platforms associated with the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base is distinct from the rewards management module; and
a universal username management module configured to enable a single sign up for users of the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base, such that platforms and/or websites accessed after users sign into the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base are accessible through a top level username across all the platforms and/or websites within the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base, wherein the writer authorized user device's referral of the reader authorized user device to the merchant occurred after the writer and reader authorized user devices are part of the universal username management module,
wherein the entry point module, the rewards management module, and the universal username management module are part of the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base such that each module has access to common data within the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base. (sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea)
These limitations set forth a concept of sending and receiving data to purchase/use/display rebates/referrals. This concept falls within the methods of organizing human activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) grouping identified by MPEP 2106. As such, the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2a – Prong Two: Per MPEP 2106, the additional elements of the claims
All the bold elements have been identified as additional limitation, these elements must be considered for whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the computer/servers are recited at an extreme level of generality and is interpreted as a generic computing device, and its incorporation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Per MPEP 2106, simply implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Figures 2A, 2B, and 3 and their related text and Paragraphs 0233-0238 of the specification detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. The claims recite the additional element of code base, various modules, and various devices. However, these limitations simply generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Per MPEP 2106, such a general linking does not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea. There are no further additional elements. Therefore, as the additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. All these elements are described at high level of generality, and merely applying computer as tool, further these elements are linked to computer network environment.
STEP 2b: Per MPEP 2106, the additional elements of the claims must be considered against for whether they constitute significantly more than the abstract idea. As previously noted, the claims describe the additional element of a computer. However, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. As such, these elements do not provide an inventive concept and do not constitute significantly more. As previously noted, the claims recite the additional element that can communicate over network in different capacity. However, per MPEP 2106, receiving and transmitting data over a network is a well-known, routine, and conventional computer functionality (Symantec), and processing that data network is a well-known, routine, and conventional computer functionality (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am).
As such, this limitation does not constitute significantly more either individually or with the above computing devices. There are no further additional elements. Therefore, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 30, 2, 4-6 further describe the abstract idea, and do not set forth further additional elements. All the additional elements recited in these claims have been addressed in claim 29 above.
Conclusion: Accordingly, because the Applicant's claims reflect claims the Courts have determined to be abstract ideas, the Applicant’s claims likewise are directed to abstract ideas. Therefore, claims 2, 4-6, and 29-30 either alone and/or as an ordered combination of elements are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, as the dependent claims remain directed to an abstract idea and as the additional elements of the dependent claims do not constitute a practical application, the dependent claims or the claims as a whole are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6, and 29-30 are allowed over the prior art. The relevant references alone or in combination don’t teach “a rewards management module configured to facilitate the rebate program by connecting a reader, operating a reader authorized user device, to a merchant operating a merchant authorized user device, wherein the merchant is linked to a comment presented on the reader authorized user device, and wherein a writer, operating a writer authorized user device, that wrote the comment receives the referral currency payment from the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base based on its referral of the reader authorized user device to the merchant, and wherein the multiple platforms associated with the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base is distinct from the rewards management module; and
a universal username management module configured to enable a single sign up for users of the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base, such that platforms and/or websites accessed after users sign into the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base are accessible through a top level username across all the platforms and/or websites within the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base, wherein the writer authorized user device's referral of the reader authorized user device to the merchant occurred after the writer and reader authorized user devices are part of the universal username management module” as claimed in independent claim 29. Dependent claims are rejected for being based on allowable independent claim. The closest relevant arts Gashler et al. (US 10970776 B1) teaches the concept of making an account available from different electronic platforms (universal account); and Roberts (US 10861037 B1) further teaches “determining a consumer's engagement with a brand of the business by tracking the consumer's activities in multiple platforms, such as social media platforms, content platforms, gaming platforms, other retailers, streaming video providers, service providers, etc.”
Response to Arguments
Regarding Prior art, the Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed on 05/22/2026, with respect to claims 2, 4-6, and 29-30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
Rgearding 35 U.S.C 101, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “new claim 29 more particularly recites the practical application of the rewards- based, universal, integrated code base. Specifically, claim 29 explains that the rewards- based, universal, integrated code base operates multiple platforms that are distinct from the reward system. That, upon signup with the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base, merchants end users/consumers operating respective authorized user devices are signed up with the reward system. Such a system enables consumers eligible to receive rewards upon making comments on some platform, whether "a blog post, a review of a product or media, a message from a first user to a second user, a social networking post, a rating, or a reaction associated with a posting." (Claim 2). Such a specific workflow is not only not abstract, but it is also directly associated with a practical application of a rewards based system tied to the overall rewards-based, universal, integrated code base.” (Pg. 11)
The applicant is merely providing a conclusory statement without any analysis, as to why the stated limitations are considered to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. In fact, the highlighted limitations provides evidence, that consumers can receive the rewards upon making comments, thus recited organizing human activity to provide incentive. Operating multiple platforms by the code base, and universal signup are claimed on high level of generality without any details regarding how the platforms are integrated, and how this integration provide improvement, or what technical problem is being solved. The improvement seems to be in business process rather than technical.
The applicant argues “Independent claim 29 is analogous to claims found patent eligible in cases such as DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) because the claims are directed to a technological architecture that addresses problems specifically arising in network-based platform environments. Similar to DDR Holdings, the implementation in claim 29 addresses challenges associated with integrating multiple distinct platforms into a unified interoperable ecosystem while maintaining shared rewards, authentication, and referral functionality across those platforms.” (Pg. 11-12)
First of all, as explained above, the claim limitations are presented at very high level of generality, and don’t include any technical detail with regard to how the multiple distinct platforms are integrated into unified interoperable ecosystem. Secondly, DDR Holding case fact are different than claimed invention, as DDR Holding provide a specific improvement into the conventional internet hyperlink protocol, whereas the instant claims merely recite the use of base code, without any details of how the integration of different platforms is different than convention integration of modules, and what improvement to the technical field of interoperability are being presented. The similar case can be made with regard to Enfish, where the improvement was shown to computer capabilities. The computer networking, and shared access technologies are conventional, and claims don’t provide any technical details as to what improvement are being claimed in these technologies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gashler et al. (US 10970776 B1): “Techniques for using an account in an electronic store are described, where the account is available from a different electronic platform. For example, a computer system receives, based on a user interface, a request for item information associated with one or more items available from a service provider. The computer system determines, based on a user account with the service provider, an association between the user account and a benefit account with a benefit provider. The computer system determines, based on the association, a deadline for a benefit that is available based on the benefit account, and determines, based on an eligibility of an item for the benefit and on the deadline, that the benefit account is usable to order the item. Further, he computer system provides, to the user interface, a description of the item and an option to use the benefit account for ordering the item.” (See, Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASEEM ASHRAF whose telephone number is (571)270-3948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 09:30 A.M-06:00 P.M.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621
