DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/11/2023 has been entered. The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments.
Claim 1 has been amended,
Claims 7-28 have been withdrawn, and
Claims 1-6 have been examined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim was previously withdrawn and has appeared to be improperly labelled as “Currently Amended”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 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:
Regarding claims 1-6, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The Claims 1-6 are directed to a process and/or 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 1-6 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 1-6 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea by analyzing the individual elements and the combination as explained below:
Independent Claim 1, will be the basis of the following 101 analysis.
STEP 1: Claim 1 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 1, recites, in part,
an authorized user device, wherein the authorized user device comprises an access component enabling access to the plurality of network-based computer servers, and wherein the authorized user device does not download or store applications thereon; (sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea)
a rewards-based, universal, integrated code base operating across the plurality of network-based computer servers for use by the authorized user device; (sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea)
an entry point module configured … … to receive new merchant participants into the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base in which each respective new merchant agrees to a payment framework in which a rebate is provided to a buyer of a product or service from the respective new merchant and a referral payment is made to a referring member who referred the buyer to the respective new merchant; (sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea)
a rewards management module configured … … to connect a reader of a comment or message made by a writer in a platform configured within the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base to a merchant associated with the comment and to provide a referral reward to the writer upon the reader making a purchase from the merchant, wherein the reader of the comment or the message reads the comment or the message on the authorized user device; (sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea)
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; and (sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea)
a data privacy management module configured … … to, upon a specific user signing up, provide an encrypted account on the plurality of network-based computer servers to access data that the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base has collected on the specific user across one or more platforms or websites, to yield collected data, and to enable the specific user to delete any or all of the collected data and to inform the specific user regarding an impact of deleting any or all of the collected data would have on rewards provide provided to the specific user for interacting with platforms or websites across 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
At least one server.
a plurality of network-based computer servers, and
an authorized user device
must be considered for whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the computer is 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 receiving information from a client executing on a device and transmitting information to a user via a client application. 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.
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 of receiving information from a client executing on a device and transmitting information to a user via a client application. 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), and storing data and electronic recordkeeping is a well-known, routine, and conventional computer functionality (Alice Corp).
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 2-6 further describe the abstract idea, and do not set forth further additional elements.
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 1-6 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.
Examiner Note
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (Pre-AIA ), or under 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA ), as being unpatentable over Beal et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0094690 A1 – Hereinafter Beal) and further in view of Abramowicz (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0288326 A1 – Hereinafter Abramowicz) and further in view of Candelore (US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0095580 A1 – Hereinafter Candelore).
Claim 1:
Beal discloses;
A system comprising: (See at least the abstract)
a plurality of network-based computer servers; (See at least Figures 1, 2, and 5 and their related text.)
an authorized user device, wherein the authorized user device comprises an access component enabling access to the plurality of network-based computer servers, and wherein the authorized user device does not download or store applications thereon; (See at least paragraphs 0008 and 0021.)
a rewards-based, universal, integrated code base operating across the plurality of network-based computer servers for use by the authorized user device; (See at least Figures 1, 2, and 5 and their related text and at least paragraphs 0008 and 0021.)
an entry point module configured on at least one server of the plurality of network-based computer servers and configured to receive new merchant participants into the rewardsbased, universal, integrated code base in which each respective new merchant agrees to a payment framework in which a rebate is provided to a buyer of a product or service from the respective new merchant and a referral payment is made to a referring member who referred the buyer to the respective new merchant; (See at least paragraph 0027.)
a universal username management module configured on at least one server of the plurality of network-based computer servers and 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; and; (See at least paragraph 0027.)
Beal does not appear to specify “a rewards management module configured on at least one server of the plurality of network-based computer servers and configured to connect a reader of a comment or message made by a writer in a platform configured within the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base to a merchant associated with the comment and to provide a referral reward to the writer upon the reader making a purchase from the merchant, wherein the reader of the comment or the message reads the comment or the message on the authorized user device.”
Abramowicz teaches rewarding reviewers in at least paragraphs 0075-0080.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ), or to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the method taught by Beal by rewarding reviewers as taught by Abramowicz in order to incentivize users to review items.
The combination Beal and Abramowicz does not appear to specify data privacy and encrypting accounts.
Candelore teaches data privacy and encrypting accounts in at least paragraphs 0075-0080.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ), or to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the method taught by the combination Beal and Abramowicz by using data privacy and encrypting accounts as taught by Candelore in order to ensure customer data integrity.
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination.
Claim 2:
The combination of Beal, Abramowicz, and Candelore teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, further Abramowicz teaches “wherein the comment or message comprises one or more of 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” in at least paragraphs 0075-0080.
The motivation to combine Beal, Abramowicz, and Candelore is the same as disclosed in Claim 1 above and is incorporated herein.
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination.
Claim 3:
The combination of Beal, Abramowicz, and Candelore teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, further Abramowicz teaches “wherein the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base enables a user operating the authorized user device of the plurality of user devices to perform one or more of switching platforms, aggregating platforms, grouping platforms, providing a review, making a purchase, interacting with a social media platform, and exchanging data between a first platform and a second platform” in at least Figures 1, 2, and 5 and their related text and at least paragraphs 0008 and 0021.
The motivation to combine Beal, Abramowicz, and Candelore is the same as disclosed in Claim 1 above and is incorporated herein.
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination.
Claim 4:
The combination of Beal, Abramowicz, and Candelore teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, further, as discussed above Candelore teaches “wherein the authorized user device provides for secure encrypted communication channel with the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base” in at least paragraphs 0075-0080.
The motivation to combine Beal, Abramowicz, and Candelore is the same as disclosed in Claim 1 above and is incorporated herein.
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination.
Claim 5:
The combination of Beal, Abramowicz, and Candelore teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, further, as discussed above Candelore teaches “wherein the authorized user device only provides a user interface served from the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base and does not store platform code” in at least Figures 1, 2, and 5 and their related text and at least paragraphs 0008 and 0021.
The motivation to combine Beal, Abramowicz, and Candelore is the same as disclosed in Claim 1 above and is incorporated herein.
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination.
Claim 6:
The combination of Beal, Abramowicz, and Candelore teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, further, as discussed above Candelore teaches “wherein accessing rewards from the rewards management module requires the authorized user device to be used to interact with the rewards-based, universal, integrated code base” in at least paragraph 0021 where the user/customer logs in.
The motivation to combine Beal, Abramowicz, and Candelore is the same as disclosed in Claim 1 above and is incorporated herein.
Further, the combination of features produces no unforeseen, new, novel, or unexpected results. Rather, each feature operates as expected singularly or in combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the claims do NOT include an Abstract idea, but the examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues “’a rewards-based, universal, integrated code base operating across the plurality of network-based computer servers for use by the authorized user device’. The analysis does not even mention this as a separate limitation nor map it to any of the prior art references.” The examiner respectfully disagrees as the previous Office Action (As does this Office Action) refers to at least Figures 1, 2, and 5 and their related text and at least paragraphs 0008 and 0021. Further the prior art references computer operated programs to perform the tasks so the prior art teaches the concept.
All arguments have been considered and are not persuasive. All other arguments are believed to have been addressed and therefore moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
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 Michael W Schmucker whose telephone number is (571)272-5044 and fax number is (571) 273-5044. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8am-6pm, and Friday, 8am - 12pm.
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, Hajime S. Rojas can be reached on (571) 270-5491. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael W Schmucker/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights