DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 5/26/2022 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/17/2023 has been entered.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/8/2026.
a. Claims 2-3, 5-11, 13-18 are amended
b. Claims 1, 4, 12 are cancelled
Overall, Claims 2-3, 5-11, 13-18 are pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 2-3, 5-11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application) without significantly more.
Per Step 1 and Step 2A of the two-step eligibility analysis, independent Claim 2, Claim 10 and Claim 18 and the therefrom dependent claims are directed respectively to a computer implemented method, to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium and to a system. Thus, on its face, each such independent claim and the therefrom dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
However, Claim 2, (which is repeated in Claims 10, 18) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites: tracking a first online activity by a user device of a second user at an administrative computer, wherein the first online activity includes selection of a first link associated with the first user code corresponding to the first user and access to a webpage via the selection of the first link; continuously polling the user device of the second user over a communication network to track new data regarding a second user activity, generating a new code to be associated with the new data polled from the user device of the second user, wherein the new code is generated based on the first user code associated with the first link selected by the user device of the second user; associating the second code with a second sphere of influence level based on a set of one or more users of the plurality of different users associated with previous online activity involving use of the link and the first code; determining a next sphere of influence level for a second set of one or more users of the plurality of users relative to the first sphere of influence level and the second sphere of influence level; continuously updating stored data regarding dynamic product data associated with use of the new code based on current online activity of the second set of users based on the first sphere of influence level, the second sphere of influence level, and the next sphere of influence level.
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity, a multilevel marketing system, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the drafted process is comparable to a marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships process, i.e. providing incentives for online activity, based on spheres of influence. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations of agreements in form of advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g. agreements in form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, (A) remaining elements of the independent claims are directed to: storing information in a memory regarding user codes corresponding to each of a plurality of different users each associated with a corresponding sphere of influence level; storing information regarding the new code of the second user of the user device based on a determination that the selection of the first link is associated with the first code and the first sphere of influence level of the first user in accordance with the stored information in memory.
When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general receipt, transmission and storage claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) Additional remaining claim elements are: the user code; the online activity; the polled data; the spheres of influence levels. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, they do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
(C) Finally, recited computing elements, i.e. processor; computer-readable storage medium are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing elements performing generic computer functions, like obtaining data, interpreting the obtained data and providing results, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, these additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because: (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
(A) Step 2B of the eligibility analysis for the independent claims concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, remaining elements of the independent claims are directed to: storing information in a memory regarding user codes corresponding to each of a plurality of different users each associated with a corresponding sphere of influence level; storing information regarding the new code of the second user of the user device based on a determination that the selection of the first link is associated with the first code and the first sphere of influence level of the first user in accordance with the stored information in memory.
When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general receipt, transmission and storage claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) Furthermore, additional remaining elements of the independent claims contain descriptive limitations explaining the nature, structure and/or content of: the user code; the online activity; the polled data; the spheres of influence levels. However, these claim elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claimed invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
(C) Finally, the recited computing elements of the independent claims are: processor; computer-readable storage medium. When considered individually, these additional claim elements serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. They do not constitute “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”. (MPEP 2106.05(a)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of any of these areas.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to significantly more, to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination.
Dependent Claim 3 (which is repeated in Claim 11) is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: automatic application of the received code to a webpage. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the limitations are considered pre-solution activity because they are mere gathering or pre-processing data/information in conjunction with the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(g)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 5 (which is repeated in Claim 13) is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: generating a new code associated with the user. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the limitations are considered pre-solution activity because they are mere gathering or pre-processing data/information in conjunction with the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(g)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 7 (which is repeated in Claim 15) is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: applying a decay rate to the dynamic incentives. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the limitations are considered pre-solution activity because they are mere gathering or pre-processing data/information in conjunction with the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(g)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 8 (which is repeated in Claim 16) is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: continuously updating the dynamic incentives. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the limitations are considered pre-solution activity because they are mere gathering or pre-processing data/information in conjunction with the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(g)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 9 (which is repeated in Claim 17) is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: tracking further online activity associated with the new account; applying one or more dynamic rewards to the new account based on the further online activity. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the limitations are considered post-solution activity because they are mere outputting or post-processing results from executing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(g)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claims 6 (which are repeated in Claims 14 respectively) are not directed to any abstract ideas and are not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims provide further descriptive limitations of elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of: the new account; the network system; the dynamic incentives. However, these elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules only.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, Claims 2-3, 5-11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Written Description (New Matter)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of the relevant portion of 35 U.S.C. §132(a):
No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Claims 2-3, 5-11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for failing to comply with the written description requirement. MPEP 2163.06 stipulates – If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) – written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2, 10, 18 have been amended by Applicant to include the elements “… generating a new code to be associated with the new data….” The claim elements have no support in the specification, drawings or initial set of claims.
The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution. The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 difference 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 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:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-11, 13-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vorotyntsev et al (US 2014/0195316), in view of Ranjan et al (US 8,930,966), in further view of DiNunzio et al (US 2021/0366056).
Regarding Claims 2, 10, 18 – Vorotyntsev: A method of tracking networked users of online services, the method comprising a plurality of processors and memory performing the steps of:
storing information in a memory regarding user codes corresponding to each of a plurality of different users each associated with a corresponding
tracking a first online activity by a user device of a second user at an administrative computer, wherein the first online activity includes selection of a first link associated with the first user code corresponding to the first user and access to a webpage via the selection of the first link; {see at least [abstract] database tracks and stores purchases (reads on online activities); [claim1] tracking and storing in the database the purchases}
Vorotyntsev does not disclose, however, Ranjan discloses:
… sphere of influence level … {see at least fig2, rc902, rc904, (80)/[23:40-63] user sphere of influence level – immediate influence, secondary influence (from secondary connections) reads on sphere of influence level)}
wherein a first user code corresponds to a first sphere of influence level of a first user of the plurality of different users; {see at least fig6, rc1620, (91)/[28:20-33] link to the external profile on a social networking website}
storing information regarding the new code of the second user of the user device based on a determination that the selection of the first link is associated with the first code and the first sphere of influence level of the first user in accordance with the stored information in memory; {see at least fug1, rc116, (27)/[4:61-5:43] user’s primary and secondary connections are stored in SSOI database; fig2, rc902, rc904, (80)/[23:40-63] user sphere of influence level – immediate influence, secondary influence (from secondary connections) reads on sphere of influence level)}
associating the second code with a second sphere of influence level based on a set of one or more users of the plurality of different users associated with previous online activity involving use of the link and the first code; {see at least fig8, rcF1-rcFn, rc804, (79)/[23:27-40]; fig9, rcMnC1, rc902, (80)/[23:41-63] additional users sphere of influence (reads on second user second sphere of influence); [abstract] database with purchases, hyperlinks; fig1, rc26, rc28, [0044] database with users and Elink; fig2, rc902, rc904, (80)/[23:40-63] user sphere of influence level – immediate influence, secondary influence (from secondary connections) reads on sphere of influence level)}
determining a next sphere of influence level for a second set of one or more users of the plurality of users relative to the first sphere of influence level and the second sphere of influence level; and {see at least fig8, rcF1-rcFn, rc804, (79)/[23:27-40]; fig9, rcMnC1, rc902, (80)/[23:41-63] additional users sphere of influence (reads on second user second sphere of influence); fig2, rc902, rc904, (80)/[23:40-63] user sphere of influence level – immediate influence, secondary influence (from secondary connections) reads on sphere of influence level)}
continuously updating stored data regarding dynamic product data associated with use of the new code based on current online activity of the second set of users based on the first sphere of influence level, the second sphere of influence level, and the next sphere of influence level. {see at least fig5, rc504, (56)-(58)/[17:45-18:20] continuously updating, updated sphere of influence; fig2, rc902, rc904, (80)/[23:40-63] user sphere of influence level – immediate influence, secondary influence (from secondary connections) reads on sphere of influence level)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Vorotyntsev to include the elements of Ranjan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create amulet-level marketing system. In the instant case, Vorotyntsev evidently discloses providing dynamic incentives to user. Ranjan is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of spheres of influence of additional users (i.e. sphere of influence levels) in the same or similar context. Since both providing dynamic incentives to user, as well as spheres of influence of additional user are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Vorotyntsev, as well as Ranjan would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Vorotyntsev / Ranjan.
Vorotyntsev, Ranjan does not disclose, however, DiNunzio discloses:
continuously polling the user device of the second user over a communication network to track new data regarding a second user activity
generating a new code to be associated with the new data polled from the user device of the second user, wherein the new code is generated based on the first user code associated with the first link selected by the user device of the second user; {see at least [0019] every user generates a digital collectible (reads on code from user device); [0065]-[0066] monitoring supporters’ activities; fig6, [0100] new account has been created; clicking on link (reads on link for second user)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Vorotyntsev, Ranjan to include the elements of DiNunzio. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to gage followers’ activity. In the instant case, Vorotyntsev, Ranjan evidently discloses multi-level marketing system. DiNunzio is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of polling second user activity. in the same or similar context. Since both multi-level marketing system, as well as polling second user activity are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, as well as DiNunzio would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Vorotyntsev, Ranjan / DiNunzio.
Regarding Claims 3, 11 – Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 10. Vorotyntsev further discloses: wherein the online activity by the user device includes
automatic application of the first user code to a webpage associated with the first link. {see at least [0014]-[0025] generate Elink for each customer (reads on code associated with Elink)}
Regarding Claims 5, 13 – Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 10. Ranjan further discloses:
first sphere of influence level is uplinc from the second sphere of influence level {see at least fig2, rc902, rc904, (80)/[23:40-63] user sphere of influence level – immediate influence, secondary influence (from secondary connections); fig2, rc902, rc904, (80)/[23:40-63] user sphere of influence level – immediate influence, secondary influence (from secondary connections) reads on sphere of influence level)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio to include additional elements of Ranjan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to better gage follower’s activities. In the instant case, Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio evidently discloses multi-level marketing system. Ranjan is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of a relationship among sphere of influence levels in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 6, 14 – Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio discloses the limitations of Claims 5, 13. Vorotyntsev further discloses:
wherein the dynamic product data associated with each user is updated differently based on the respective
Ranjan further discloses:
… sphere of influence level …{seea ta least fig2, rc902, rc904, (80)/[23:40-63] user sphere of influence level – immediate influence, secondary influence (from secondary connections) reads on sphere of influence level)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio to include additional elements of Ranjan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to forecast the influence influencers will have. In the instant case, Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio evidently discloses multi-level marketing system. Ranjan is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of a sphere of influence level in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 9, 17 – Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 10. Vorotyntsev further discloses:
tracking further online activity associated with the new code, and {see at least [abstract] database tracks and stores purchases (reads on online activities); [claim1] tracking and storing in the database the purchases}
updating the dynamic product data further based on the further online activity. {see at least [0016] … downstream friends, family and followers of an initial purchasers/users are able to engage in the compensation percentages for additional sales using a comprehensive multi-tiered hyperlink system.}
Claims 7-8, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vorotyntsev et al (US 2014/0195316), in view of Ranjan et al (US 8,930,966), in further view of DiNunzio et al (US 2021/0366056), in further view of Johnson et al (US 2017/0024767)
Regarding Claims 7, 15 – Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 10. Ranjan further discloses:
… sphere of influence level … {see at least fig2, rc902, rc904, (80)/[23:40-63] user sphere of influence level – immediate influence, secondary influence (from secondary connections) reads on sphere of influence level)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio to include additional elements of Ranjan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to forecast the influence influencers will have. In the instant case, Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio evidently discloses multi-level marketing system. Ranjan is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of a sphere of influence level in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio does not disclose, however, Johnson discloses:
wherein updating the dynamic product data is further based on a decay rate corresponding to
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio to include the elements of Johnson. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide the multi-level marketing system with the right compensation tool. In the instant case, Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio evidently discloses multi-level marketing system. Johnson is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of a decay rate for the incentives in the same or similar context. Since both multi-level marketing system, as well as a decay rate for the incentives are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio, as well as Johnson would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio / Johnson.
Regarding Claims 8, 16 – Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 10. Vorotyntsev, Ranjan does not disclose, however, Johnson discloses:
continuously updating the dynamic product data. {see at least [0198] updates in real-time}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio to include the elements of Johnson. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide the multi-level marketing system with the right compensation tool. In the instant case, Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio evidently discloses multi-level marketing system. Johnson is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of a updating the incentives in the same or similar context. Since both multi-level marketing system, as well as updating the incentives are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio, as well as Johnson would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Vorotyntsev, Ranjan, DiNunzio / Johnson.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20100211530 A1 2010-08-19 17 Tazawa; Yoshimi SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTING EARNINGS
US 20070219871 A1 2007-09-20 29 Rolf; Devon A. et al. Methods for developing a multilevel person to person affiliate marketing network using electronic communications
US 20080262920 A1 2008-10-23 27 O'Neill; Sean M. et al. METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR TRACKING AND ATTRIBUTING ACTIVITIES OF GUEST USERS
US 20070124280 A1 2007-05-31 12 Tateossian; Tony Search Engine which awards Point per Click
US 20040093269 A1 2004-05-13 12 Rubin, Wayne et al. Multi-level sales and marketing methodology for the internet
US 20140195316 A1 2014-07-10 20 Vorotyntsev; Mikhail et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ENHANCED AND COMBINED ONLINE MARKETING AND SALES
US 20070265921 A1 2007-11-15 11 Rempe; Nathan D. et al. Hierarchical referral system
US 20170024767 A1 2017-01-26 33 Johnson, JR.; William V et al. Technology System to Develop and Support Community News Services with Multi-Dimensional Marketing and Distributed Computing.
US 6421648 B1 2002-07-16 14 Gagnon; Louis et al. Data processing system for the management of a differential continuous compensation plan
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “That requirement of MPEP § 2106.04 is not met in the present claims, which recite only computer-specific functions regarding tracking 'online activity' associated with 'user code's as recited in the present claims including …”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Based on the claim language (“continuously polling the user device of the second user over a communication network to track new data regarding a second user activity …”) and in view of the specification (“multi-level marketing system”), the claims of the instant application are directed to providing incentives for online activity, based on spheres of influence, which falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g. agreements in form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Moreover, there is no mention of any commercial activity whether marketing, sales, or interpersonal-mentioned anywhere in the claims as presented, and performance of the claimed steps do not include or require any commercial activities nor behaviors to take place.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
As mentioned in the response immediately above, the claims have to be interpreted “in light of the application specification.” See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Moreover, the present claims recite a transformation, which weighs towards finding an integration into a practical application under prong two of step 2A. In particular, two separate data structures are merged to create a new merged data structure, which is then further converted into new product tree data structure. Such integration into practical application indicates patent-eligibility under prong 2.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It appears the Applicant refers to the requirements of MPEP 2106.05(c). A careful reading of the paragraph will reveal that this requirement pertains to physical transformation of matter, as it happens in chemical and biochemical areas. No such transformation can be evidenced in the computer functioning areas.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits that the prior art of record does not disclose ‘sphere of influence level'.
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Rajan discloses:
… sphere of influence level … {see at least fig2, rc902, rc904, (80)/[23:40-63] user sphere of influence level – immediate influence, secondary influence (from secondary connections) reads on sphere of influence level, including next sphere of influence level, as recited by the claims.}
Therefore, Ranjan discloses the claim limitation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
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 mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698