DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s “AMENDMENT” filed on February 6, 2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”). In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 1 and 19; cancelled no claim(s); and added no claim(s). Claims 18 and 36 were previously cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-17 and 19-35 remain currently pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1 and 19 remain independent claims.
The instant application (App. No. 17/947,015), which claims benefit to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/245,479, is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ) since both applications were filed after March 16, 2013.
Benefit Claim
No foreign priority has been claimed in this application.
Applicant’s claim for benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/245,479, filed on September 17, 2021, is acknowledged. See 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 (a)(4) – (a)(6) for the benefit claim of a prior provisional application. See MPEP § 201.11.
Examiner Notes
Original Claims 1-36 were originally presented by Applicant and, therefore, have been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits per MPEP §§ 819 & 821.03.
Examiner notes that the instant application (U.S. App. No. 17/947,015) has published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0088729 of Murray et al. (hereinafter “Murray”).
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Applicant is notified of MPEP § 2001.06(b): “prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are ‘material to patentability’ of the subsequent application”.
Examiner notes International Publication No. WO/2023/044058 of Murray and Solomon (hereinafter “Related PCT Application #1”) having an international filing date of 16 September 2022.
Examiner notes International Publication No. WO/2023/044051 of Murray and Solomon (hereinafter “Related PCT Application #2”) having an international filing date of 16 September 2022.
Applicant is notified of 37 C.F.R. 1.56, which states that each inventor named in the application has a duty to disclose information material to patentability.
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 1-17 and 19-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains § 101 rejections to Claims 1-17 and 19-35, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome prior art rejections to Claims 1-17 and 19-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103; therefore, the Examiner maintains § 103 rejections to Claims 1-17 and 19-35, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 and 19-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-17 and 19-35 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-17 and 19-35 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 1-17 and 19-35 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite offering a person (i.e., a passenger on a transport vessel) one or more rewards/benefits (e.g., network access service, such as Internet access time; getting access to media content, such as to a film or to a video game; etc.) in exchange for the person engaging or completing one or more actions/interactions (e.g., watching or viewing an advertisement, browsing, purchasing a product/service, signing up for a product/service, trying out a product/service, downloading an app., et cetera in view of Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0069], [0077] and [0082] of Murray and Drawing Figure 6 of Murray), the actions/interactions being required for the person to earn the one or more rewards/benefits (e.g., getting access to the Internet or to media content, etc.) — a quid pro quo arrangement — as more particularly recited in Applicant’s pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements): communication sessions within a transport vessel that includes a multi-user access terminal providing network access service to the transport vessel via a wireless communications link between the terminal and a network; a plurality of passenger devices (i.e., first device, second device, etc. that are associated with passengers) on the transport vessel, the plurality of devices being coupled with the multi-user access terminal; a communication session delivery system within the transport vessel; a portal associated with the communication session delivery system; engagement/interaction/completion by the one or more passengers; an indication of the engagement/interaction/completion by the passenger; each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of identifying, determining, receiving, displaying, providing a communication session, and the providing comprising allowing the network access service for the first device; (only Claims 10 and 28) receiving an indication that an amount of data transferred as part of the first brand interaction exceeds a data transfer threshold; (only Claims 11 and 29) receiving an indication that a duration associated with the first brand interaction exceeds a duration threshold; and (only Claim 19 and corresponding dependent claims) an apparatus comprising: an offer evaluator configured to identify, a communication interface configured to provide and to display, and an interaction controller configured to receive. However, a quid pro quo arrangement — offering/providing a person with one or more rewards/benefits in exchange for the person engaging or completing one or more interactions/actions that are required for the person to earn the one or more rewards/benefits, as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; and/or (ii) commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) provides additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each of Applicant’s claims as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, any improvement is to Applicant’s underlying abstract idea of offering/providing rewards/benefits in exchange for completion/engagement of one or more required interactions/activities — a quid pro quo arrangement. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.”). Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a transport vessel, such as an airplane, providing passengers on the transport vessel with “communication sessions” (access to Internet/media) allowing network access service to the first passenger device for a duration within the airplane}, and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of identifying, determining, receiving, displaying, providing and allowing, as further explained below. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner notes that each of Claims 1-17 is drawn to a method; however, the method steps do not recite, require, or indicate implementation by a particular machine albeit Examiner notes that the 6th step of Applicant’s independent claims are performed “by the communication session delivery system”, which appears to be no more than “a communication session delivery system 910” as generically described at specification paragraphs [0119]–[0120] of Applicant’s originally filed specification. Even with a computer/machine being implied in method Claims 1-17, Applicant’s claim limitations taken individually and in combination would be merely instructions to implement Applicant’s abstract idea on a computer and would require no more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a transport vessel, such as an airplane, providing passengers on the transport vessel with “communication sessions” (access to Internet/media) allowing network access service to the first passenger device for a duration within the airplane}, and having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of identifying, determining, receiving, displaying, providing and allowing, as further explained below. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in Claims 19-35 are performed by the generically recited “reward offer evaluator”, “communication interface coupled with the multi-user access terminal and a plurality of [passenger] devices on the transport vessel” and “brand interaction controller”, these limitations recited in Claims 19-35, taken individually and in combination, are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a transport vessel, such as an airplane, providing passengers on the transport vessel with “communication sessions” (access to Internet/media) allowing network access service to the first passenger device for a duration within the airplane}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of identifying, determining, receiving, displaying and providing and allowing, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: communication sessions within a transport vessel that includes a multi-user access terminal providing network access service to the transport vessel via a wireless communications link between the terminal and a network; a plurality of passenger devices (i.e., first device, second device, etc. that are associated with passengers) on the transport vessel, the plurality of devices being coupled with the multi-user access terminal; a communication session delivery system within the transport vessel; a portal associated with the communication session delivery system; engagement/interaction/completion by the one or more passengers; an indication of the engagement/interaction/completion by the passenger; each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of identifying, determining, receiving, displaying, providing a communication session, and the providing comprising allowing the network access service for the first device; (only Claims 10 and 28) receiving an indication that an amount of data transferred as part of the first brand interaction exceeds a data transfer threshold; (only Claims 11 and 29) receiving an indication that a duration associated with the first brand interaction exceeds a duration threshold; and (only Claim 19 and corresponding dependent claims) an apparatus comprising: an offer evaluator configured to identify, a communication interface configured to provide and to display, and an interaction controller configured to receive. However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of identifying, determining, receiving, displaying, providing and allowing — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide conventional computer implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in the pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The steps/operations of identifying, determining, receiving, displaying, providing and allowing, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the steps of identifying and determining encompasses a data recognition/inquiry function or retrieving function (e.g., data lookup function) performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data recognition); each of the steps of “receiving” encompasses a data input/loading or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)}; and each of the steps of displaying, providing and allowing encompasses a data output/transmittal function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}. In addition, Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure [i.e., at specification paragraph [0133] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0088729 (“Murray”)] mentions that “due to the nature of software, functions described herein can be implemented using software executed by a processor, hardware, firmware, hardwiring, or combinations of any of these” (see Murray at ¶ [0133]). Also see the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, at page 7, second and sixth bullet points (July 30, 2015) regarding various well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer. Employing well-known computer functions individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the computer-implemented abstract idea in Flook (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)) to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-17 and 19-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA ) 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 of this title, 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, 4-9, 12-17, 19-20, 22-27 and 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the America Invents Act (AIA ) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0334703 of Wayne Chang (hereinafter “Chang”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,885,540 issued to Berger et al. (hereinafter “Berger”).
Regarding Claim 1, Chang discloses a method for providing communication sessions within a transport vessel (airplane) that includes a multi-user access terminal providing network access service to the transport vessel (airplane) via a wireless communications link between the multi-user access terminal and a network, the method comprising (e.g., Figure 1 of Chang illustrates an airplane providing Internet service to multiple passengers on the airplane; “providing in-flight rewards” —Chang at ¶ [0003]; “provide passengers with tangible rewards based on…completion of various activities within the IFE system” and “an inflight entertainment (IFE) system” —Chang at ¶¶ [0012] and [0016]; “the user (e.g., passenger) can be presented with… connectivity… aboard the flight”, such as “Internet connectivity” —Chang at ¶¶ [0012] and [0016]; “an inflight entertainment (IFE) system 110 within the airplane 112…. can provide a source of entertainment to each passenger in the airplane…” —Chang at ¶ [0016]; and Chang at ¶¶ [0012], [0034], [0038] and [0040]):
identifying, at a communication session delivery system within the transport vessel, a plurality of reward offers comprising respective brand interactions with a plurality of brand partners and respective rewards related to the communication sessions, wherein the plurality of reward offers comprise reward offers of a plurality of reward offer types, and wherein the plurality of reward offer types are associated with a plurality of levels of engagement with brand partner services by a plurality of passengers on the transport vessel (e.g., identifying in-flight reward offers to display to airline passengers based on passenger engagement/interaction/actions/behavior — “a plurality of rewards for redemption by a user, each reward of the plurality of rewards being associated with completion criteria, the completion criteria including one or more actions required to redeem each reward” —Chang at ¶ [0003]; “IFE system 112 can provide… Internet connectivity” —Chang at ¶ [0016]; “The user profiles 206 can be created by the user…. profiles 206… updated to reflect interactions with the IFE system 110, including… purchases made, consumed content, travel habits, travel origins/destinations, user in-flight entertainment usage behavior…” and “package such rewards as offers and then provide the offers based [on] user profiles, flight details, and user interaction with the IFE system 100” —Chang at ¶¶ [0032] and [0042]; and Chang at ¶¶ [0012], [0040]–[0042] and [0051]);
determining, at the system, a first group of reward offers of the plurality of reward offers, the first group of reward offers having first respective proportions of the plurality of reward offer types associated with a first threshold level of engagement (e.g., determining 1st group of in-flight reward offers to display to airline passengers — “one or more offers via a display device” —Abstract of Chang; “combining… completion criteria with…rewards…as offers” —Chang at ¶ [0003]; and Chang at ¶¶ [0003], [0012], [0033], [0037] and [0040]–[0042]);
displaying, via a portal associated with the system, at a first device of a plurality of devices on the transport vessel (airplane) associated with the plurality of passengers, the first group of reward offers of the plurality of reward offers, the plurality of devices coupled with the multi-user access terminal (e.g., displaying 1st group of in-flight reward offers to 1st airline passenger — “presenting… offers of a plurality of offers via the display device based on the user activity and one or more flight details” such as via “the plurality of display devices 130 onboard an airplane 112” and “display devices 130…combined within an inflight entertainment (IFE) system 110 within the airplane 112” —Chang at ¶¶ [0003] and [0014]–[0016]; and Chang at ¶¶ [0003], [0033], [0037] and [0040]–[0042]);
receiving, at the portal via the multi-user access terminal, an indication of completion by a first passenger associated with the first device of a first brand interaction associated with a first reward offer of the first group of reward offers, wherein the first reward offer is of a first reward offer type, wherein the indication of completion of the first brand interaction is based at least in part on a first level of engagement by the first passenger satisfying the first threshold level of engagement (e.g., 1st airline passenger completes one or more interactions or tasks to qualify the 1st passenger for a reward associated with one of the reward offers in the 1st group — “each reward is associated with completion criteria including one or more actions required to redeem the reward” —Abstract of Chang; “detecting… satisfaction of the completion criteria…. presenting the…rewards… based on the detecting” —Chang at ¶ [0003]; “determine that a passenger (e.g., one or more passengers) has qualified for a reward opportunity” —Chang at ¶ [0048]; “Once that activity is completed or associated completion criteria associated with the task are complete, the user (e.g., passenger) can be presented with certain tangible rewards” —Chang at ¶ [0012]; “digitally delivered reward… passenger can… select which reward to use or redeem” —Chang at ¶ [0053]; and Chang at ¶¶ [0003], [0012], [0016], [0037], [0040], [0042], [0044], [0048] and [0050]–[0051]);
providing, to the first passenger via the first device coupled with the multi-user access terminal, a communication session according to a respective reward associated with the first brand interaction based at least in part on the indication of completion by the first passenger of the first brand interaction, wherein providing the communication session comprises allowing the network access service for the first device for a duration associated with the respective reward (e.g., given that the 1st airline passenger has now earned the reward, providing the 1st airline passenger with the reward, such as Internet access for the 1st airline passenger to use during a communication session — “each reward is associated with…actions required to redeem the reward” and “Once that activity is completed… the user (e.g., passenger) can be presented with certain tangible rewards” such as Internet access during the flight — Abstract of Chang; “passenger can… select which reward to use or redeem…. users/passengers…redeem the rewards” and “rewards can include…. inflight Internet connectivity for a limited period of time” —Chang at ¶¶ [0053] and [0040]; and Chang at ¶¶ [0012], [0016], [0037], [0040], [0044], [0048] and [0050]–[0051]);
determining, by the system, a second group of reward offers of the plurality of reward offers based on the indication of completion by the first passenger of the first brand interaction, the second group of reward offers having second respective proportions of the plurality of reward offer types for the first passenger (e.g., determining 2nd group of in-flight reward offers based on 1st airline passenger’s past redemptions, interactions or tasks — “number and type of specific reward offers displayed can also be based on certain information contained in a user profile of the user” such as “redemption history” and then “provide the offers based user profiles, flight details, and user interaction with the IFE system 100” —Chang at ¶¶ [0022], [0004] and [0042]; “determine which type of reward to present…. can dynamically choose the reward base[d] on factors such as type and frequency of passenger activity” —Chang at ¶ [0048]; “presenting… offers of a plurality of offers via the display device based on the user activity” such as “the user profile including reward redemption history…. presenting can be…based on the user profile” —Chang at ¶¶ [0003] and [0004], respectively; “various user data to provide offers (and reward opportunities) to users at optimum times…. information about individual users can be stored to user profiles (FIG. 2) and can then be users to predict what offers will be accepted during specific periods of flight” —Chang at ¶ [0025]; “package the rewards (e.g., as offers) according to the user profiles 206 or other user” —Chang at ¶ [0042]; “provide the offers based user profiles, flight details, and user interaction with the IFE system 100” —Chang at ¶ [0042]; and Chang at ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0033], [0042], [0046] and [0050]); and
displaying, via the portal and at a second device (the first device), the second group of reward offers of the plurality of reward offers (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0033], [0042], [0046] and [0050]; “presenting… offers of a plurality of offers via the display device based on the user activity” such as “the user profile including reward redemption history…. presenting can be…based on the user profile” —Chang at ¶¶ [0003] and [0004], respectively; “…provide offers (and reward opportunities) to users at optimum times…. during specific periods of flight” —Chang at ¶ [0025]; and “provide the offers based user profiles, flight details, and user interaction with the IFE system 100” —Chang at ¶ [0042]; “passenger can… select which reward to use or redeem…. users/passengers…redeem the rewards” and “rewards can include…. inflight Internet connectivity for a limited period of time” —Chang at ¶¶ [0053] and [0040]), but Chang arguably fails to explicitly disclose the second group of reward offers having second respective proportions of the plurality of reward offer types associated with a second threshold level of engagement for the first passenger based at least in part on the indication of completion of the first brand interaction, wherein the second threshold level of engagement is higher than the first threshold level of engagement, and wherein the second respective proportions exclude the first reward offer based at least in part on the indication of completion of the first brand interaction. However, Berger teaches limiting a number of offers that may become redeemable in a first campaign including a first reward offer, conveying a sense of urgency to customers by communicating a number of remaining redeemable offers to the customers, which may compel the customers to take an action to participate in the campaign (e.g., Berger at Col. 7, lines 2-13; and Figures 4-5, 9A and 9C of Berger), wherein the first campaign has a limited number of redeemable offers that terminate upon redemption by customers such that a second group of reward offers having second respective proportions of a plurality of reward offer types associated with a second threshold level of engagement for a first customer based on an indication of completion of a first brand interaction, wherein the second threshold level of engagement is higher than a first threshold level of engagement, and wherein the second respective proportions exclude the first reward offer based at least in part on the indication of completion of the first brand interaction (e.g., “first campaign has a limited number of redeemable offers that terminate upon redemption by customers” —Berger at Col. 16, lines 15-17; Figures 4-5, 8B, 9A and 9C of Berger; Berger at Col. 7, lines 2-13; Berger at Col. 9, lines 44-49; Berger at Col. 10, lines 37-53 and 56-66; and “customers are incentivized to participate in the campaign by performing the campaign action as required by the offer condition” and “convey a sense of urgency compelling that customer to take an instant action to participate in the campaign” —Berger at Col. 11, lines 18-21 and 26-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the second group of reward offers having second respective proportions of the plurality of reward offer types associated with a second threshold level of engagement for the first passenger based at least in part on the indication of completion of the first brand interaction, wherein the second threshold level of engagement is higher than the first threshold level of engagement, and wherein the second respective proportions exclude the first reward offer based at least in part on the indication of completion of the first brand interaction, as taught by Berger, into the method/system disclosed by Chang, which is directed toward passenger users spending time to engage with reward offers to earn rewards over time for a benefit as well as reward offers being selected based on historical passenger activity (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0003]–[0004], [0012], [0038] and [0040]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Berger as applied to Claim 1 above and Chang teaching wherein the plurality of levels of engagement comprises a first level of engagement and a second level of engagement, wherein the second level of engagement is greater than the first level of engagement (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0033], [0042] and [0046]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Berger as applied to Claim 2 above and Chang teaching wherein the first level of engagement is associated with a passive engagement by the plurality of passengers and a second level of engagement is associated with an active engagement by the plurality of passengers (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0033], [0042] and [0046]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Berger as applied to Claim 4 above and Chang teaching wherein the active engagement by the plurality of passengers comprises a purchase from a brand partner associated with a respective reward offer, completion of a survey, submission of an email address, or interaction with a domain of a brand partner associated with a respective reward offer (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0033], [0042] and [0046]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Berger as applied to Claim 2 above and Chang teaching wherein the first reward offer type is associated with the first level of engagement (e.g., “a plurality of rewards for redemption by a user, each reward of the plurality of rewards being associated with completion criteria, the completion criteria including one or more actions required to redeem each reward” —Chang at ¶¶ [0003]; and Chang at ¶¶ [0012], [0040]–[0042] and [0051]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Berger as applied to Claim 6 above and Chang teaching wherein a respective proportion of reward offers of the first reward offer type in the second group of reward offers is lower than a respective proportion of reward offers of the first reward offer type in the first group of reward offers (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0003], [0012], [0023], [0025], [0033], [0040]–[0042], [0046] and [0051]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Berger as applied to Claim 6 above and Chang teaching wherein a quantity of reward offers of the first reward offer type in the second group of reward offers is lower than a quantity of remaining offers of the first reward offer type after excluding the first reward offer (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0003], [0012], [0023], [0025], [0033], [0040]–[0042], [0046] and [0051]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Berger as applied to Claim 6 above and Chang teaching wherein reward offers of the first reward offer type in the second group of reward offers corresponds to remaining offers of the first reward offer type after excluding the first reward offer (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0003], [0012], [0023], [0025], [0033], [0040]–[0042], [0046] and [0051]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Berger as applied to Claim 1 above and Chang teaching wherein the plurality of reward offer types are associated with different characteristics of the communication sessions provided upon completion by the first passenger of an associated brand interaction (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0003], [0012], [0023], [0025], [0033], [0040]–[0042], [0046] and [0051]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Berger as applied to Claim 12 above and Chang teaching wherein the different characteristics comprise a first type of communication session that is restricted to one or more domains and a second type of communication session that is unrestricted (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0003], [0012], [0023], [0025], [0033], [0040]–[0042], [0046] and [0051]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Berger as applied to Claim 12 above and Chang teaching wherein the different characteristics comprise different durations of the communication sessions (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0003], [0012], [0023], [0025], [0033], [0040]–[0042], [0046] and [0051]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Berger as applied to Claim 1 above and Chang teaching wherein at least one of the plurality of reward offer types present in the first group of reward offers is absent from the second group of reward offers (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0003], [0012], [0023], [0025], [0033], [0040]–[0042], [0046] and [0051]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Berger as applied to Claim 1 above and Chang teaching: determining the first group of reward offers or the second group of reward offers based at least in part on a characteristic associated with a travel segment of the transport vessel (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0003], [0012], [0023], [0025], [0033], [0040]–[0042], [0046] and [0051]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Berger as applied to Claim 1 above and Chang teaching: determining the first group of reward offers or the second group of reward offers based at least in part on a characteristic associated with the first passenger (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0003], [0012], [0023], [0025], [0033], [0040]–[0042], [0046] and [0051]).
Regarding Claim 19, Chang in view of Berger teaches an apparatus for providing communication sessions within a transport vessel that includes a multi-user access terminal providing network access service to the transport vessel via a wireless communications link between the multi-user access terminal and a network, the apparatus comprising: a reward offer evaluator, a communication interface coupled with the multi-user access terminal and a plurality of devices on the transport vessel, and a brand interaction controller that have been configured (e.g., Figure 1 of Chang) to perform substantially similar processes/steps as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, independent Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 20, 22-27 and 30-35 recite substantially similar subject matter to that of respective Claims 2, 4-9 and 12-17 and, therefore, Claims 20, 22-27 and 30-35 are rejected on the same prior art basis(es) as Claims 2, 4-9 and 12-17, respectively.
Claims 3, 10-11, 21 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the AIA as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0334703 (“Chang”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,885,540 (“Berger”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0005069 of Seidl et al. (hereinafter “Seidl”).
Regarding Claim 3, Chang in view of Berger teaches the method of claim 2, but Chang arguably fails to explicitly teach wherein the first level of engagement is associated with a first duration of engagement by the plurality of passengers and the second level of engagement is associated with a second duration of engagement by the plurality of passengers, wherein the second duration is longer than the first duration. However, Seidl teaches providing persons with an opportunity to earn rewards by engaging or interacting with available reward offers of various reward offer types having different levels of engagement (e.g., Figure 6 of Seidl; and Seidl at ¶¶ [0010] and [0015]) wherein a first level of engagement is associated with a first duration of engagement by the users and the second level of engagement is associated with a second duration of engagement by the users, wherein the second duration is longer than the first duration (e.g., Seidl at ¶¶ [0010], [0015], [0032]–[0033] and [0039]; and Figures 6 and 10-11 of Seidl). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the first level of engagement is associated with a first duration of engagement by the plurality of passengers and the second level of engagement is associated with a second duration of engagement by the plurality of passengers, wherein the second duration is longer than the first duration, as taught by Seidl, into the method/system taught by Chang in view of Berger, which is directed toward passenger users spending time to engage with reward offers to earn rewards over time for a benefit (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0003], [0012], [0038] and [0040]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Regarding Claim 10, Chang in view of Berger teaches the method of claim 1, but Chang arguably fails to explicitly teach wherein receiving the indication of completion by the first passenger includes receiving an indication that an amount of data transferred as part of the first brand interaction exceeds a data transfer threshold. However, Seidl teaches providing persons with an opportunity to earn rewards by engaging or interacting with available reward offers of various reward offer types having different levels of engagement (e.g., Figure 6 of Seidl; and Seidl at ¶¶ [0010] and [0015]) wherein receiving an indication of completion by one of the persons includes receiving an indication that an amount of data transferred as part of the first brand interaction exceeds a data transfer threshold (e.g., Seidl at ¶¶ [0010], [0015], [0032]–[0033] and [0039]; and Figures 6 and 10-11 of Seidl). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein receiving the indication of completion by the first passenger includes receiving an indication that an amount of data transferred as part of the first brand interaction exceeds a data transfer threshold, as taught by Seidl, into the method/system taught by Chang in view of Berger, which is directed toward passenger users spending time to engage with reward offers to earn rewards over time for a benefit (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0003], [0012], [0038] and [0040]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Regarding Claim 11, Chang in view of Berger teaches the method of claim 1, but Chang arguably fails to explicitly teach wherein receiving the indication of completion by the first passenger includes receiving an indication that a duration associated with the first brand interaction exceeds a duration threshold. However, Seidl teaches providing persons with an opportunity to earn rewards by engaging or interacting with available reward offers of various reward offer types having different levels of engagement (e.g., Figure 6 of Seidl; and Seidl at ¶¶ [0010] and [0015]) wherein receiving an indication of completion by one of the persons includes receiving an indication that a duration associated with the first brand interaction exceeds a duration threshold (e.g., Seidl at ¶¶ [0010], [0015], [0032]–[0033] and [0039]; and Figures 6 and 10-11 of Seidl). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein receiving the indication of completion by the first passenger includes receiving an indication that a duration associated with the first brand interaction exceeds a duration threshold, as taught by Seidl, into the method/system taught by Chang in view of Berger, which is directed toward passenger users spending time to engage with reward offers to earn rewards over time for a benefit (e.g., Chang at ¶¶ [0003], [0012], [0038] and [0040]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claims 21 and 28-29 recite substantially similar subject matter to that of respective Claims 3 and 10-11 and, therefore, Claims 21 and 28-29 are rejected on the same prior art basis(es) as Claims 3 and 10-11, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on February 6, 2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner references citations above to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0334703 (“Chang”) and to U.S. Patent No. 10,885,540 (“Berger”) in an effort to assist Applicant given Applicant’s amendments and arguments in “Amendment”.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Pages 10-18) Applicant asserts that the pending claims, in view of amendments to Claims 1 and 19, are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
(Pages 18-21) Applicant asserts that the independent claims, as currently amended, are not obvious over Chang in view of Berger.
(Page 21) Applicant asserts that Claims 2-17 and Claims 20-35, which depend from respective independent Claims 1 and 19 and include respective limitations therein, are patentably distinguishable over any combination of Chang, Berger, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0005069 (“Seidl”) based on at least the same reasons provided with respect to independent Claims 1 and 19.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Arguments
Please see § 101 rejections above regarding the pending claims being drawn to ineligible subject matter in view of considering all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole including amended portions of the independent claims.
It may be worth noting that on pages 13-14 of Applicant’s amendment filed in March 2025, Applicant generally argued that the pending “claims are directed to an improvement to a relevant technology” (page 13), “are rooted in technology and directed to technological improvements” (page 13), “improved user experience among person which interact with such systems.… may provide a technical solution to at least this technical problem” (page 14) and then describes what the claimed solution "may" do without explaining whether the claimed solution actually accomplishes any of the alleged possible improvements and, therefore, Applicant's argument amounts to no more than a speculative/conclusory allegation that the pending claims provide, per Applicant’s as-filed specification ¶ [0004], “overcome the shortcomings of conventional communication session delivery systems” to support an invention under § 101. In addition, on page 17 of Applicant’s March 2025 amendment, Applicant argued that “the technological features recited in amended independent claims 1 and 19 are directed to new and useful solutions to salient problems in the emerging field of communications in a shared radio frequency spectrum band” (e.g., see the March 2025 amendment at the last paragraph of page 17). However, Applicant's alleged improvements were no more than a desired or intended result that are not required to be performed or achieved based on the claim language currently recited in each of Applicant’s independent claims. Thus, none of Applicant’s pending claims were required to improve any computer related technology or to improve upon the functioning of the computer itself. Consequently, Applicant's arguments constituted no more than a general allegation that the pending claims provides a plurality of improvements under § 101.
On pages 13-15 of Applicant’s Amendment filed in February 2026, Applicant generally argues that the pending “claims are directed to an improvement to a relevant technology” (page 13), “are rooted in technology and directed to technological improvements” (page 13), “improved user experience among person which interact with such systems. For example, … a technical solution to at least this technical problem” (page 14) and then describes the claimed solution as “improvements to the user experience” (page 14) without explaining how completing brand interactions chosen by the passenger actually accomplishes any of the alleged possible improvements to technology — not improvements to Applicant’s abstract idea —and, therefore, Applicant's arguments amount to no more than a speculative/conclusory allegation that Applicant's pending claims provide, per Applicant’s as-filed specification ¶ [0004], “overcome the shortcomings of conventional communication session delivery systems” to support an invention under § 101. In addition, on page 18 of the Amendment filed in February 2026, Applicant argues that “the technological features recited in amended independent claims 1 and 19 are directed to new and useful solutions to salient problems in the emerging field of communications in a shared radio frequency spectrum band” (e.g., page 19 of Feb. 2026 Amendment). However, Applicant's alleged improvements are no more than a desired or intended result that are not required to be performed or achieved based on the claim language currently recited in each of Applicant’s independent claims. Thus, none of Applicant’s pending claims are required to improve any computer related technology or to improve upon the functioning of the computer itself. Consequently, Applicant's arguments constitute no more than a general allegation that Applicant’s pending claims provides a plurality of improvements under § 101.
In summary, based upon consideration of all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Applicant’s pending claims are drawn to ineligible subject matter and, therefore, remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding § 103, please see citations to prior art references of Chang and Berger in the § 103 rejections above regarding amended portions of Applicant’s independent claims. Examiner notes that during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation”. In view of this standard, Examiner asserts § 103 rejections to Applicant’s amended Claims 1 and 19, as noted above under § 103 with respect to what Berger teaches for a first customer, which corresponds to the first passenger disclosed in Chang. Examiner notes that patent documents are relevant as prior art for all they contain and that “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” —MPEP § 2123.
Please see above prior art rejections with respect to independent Claims 1 and 19 for at least the same reasons provided with respect to the independent claims that Claims 2-17 and 20-35, depending from respective independent Claims 1 and 19 and including the limitations therein, are not patentable based on dependency from respective independent claims.
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this particular Office action:
U.S. Patent No. 11,263,653 issued to Sumien et al. (hereinafter “Sumien”) for “Promotions provided during in-flight entertainment (“IFE”) can be linked to the content (e.g., movie, tv shows, documentaries, or video game) being hosted by the IFE” and “interactive and engaging user interface and systems that provide dynamically changing promotions and the use of IFE functions to gamify the promotion and buying experience. The operations for promoting goods, services, and other items can provide a gamified experience for passengers, which can result in increased passenger engagement and may translate to an increase in onboard sales and associated revenue” —Sumien.
U.S. Patent No. 9,833,694 issued to Anand Adi Subramani (hereinafter “Subramani”) for “the reward module 230 of the reward system 150 provides rewards, awards, discounts, and other incentives to players based on the activity levels of users associated with the players” —Description of Subramani.
U.S. Patent No. 9,900,082 issued to Chowdhury et al. (hereinafter “Chowdhury”) for “data transmissions can occur while an aircraft (e.g., the aircraft 120) is flying, such that the application 162 enables the computing device 160 to receive access to a set of in-flight network services associated with network services 152 provisioned by SATCOM providers (e.g., the SATCOM providers 150). Examples of user interfaces provided through the application 162 to allow a user to access in-flight network services are depicted in FIG. 4.” —Description paragraph 43 of Chowdhury.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0061471 of Bates et al. (hereinafter “Bates”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0037372 of Girard et al. (hereinafter “Girard”) for “an aircraft's in -flight entertainment system when the mobile computing device connects to a wireless access point on board the aircraft or connects to the server via a wired connection such as USB.” —Girard at ¶ [0009]; “Rewards may be offered once the user accepts the content on the user's device or after the content is downloaded from the user device. Rewards can include, for example, a monetary reward, a discount coupon, an in-flight offering, an upgraded seat, priority boarding, frequent flier points, or an entry into a drawing for a give-away.” —Girard at ¶ [0010]; and “in-flight rewards such as a free or discounted meal, drink or movie, upgraded seating, priority boarding, free checked bag, frequent flier points, or an entry into a drawing for a give-away. Such rewards could be based… on one or more of a passenger's status with the airline, a length of the flight associated with the passenger” —Girard at ¶ [0026].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0207533 of Anderson et al. (hereinafter “Anderson”) for “To earn the rewards, for example, a user can be presented with a first request to view or experience content on a client device. The user can receive the first reward by viewing or experiencing the content. During or after the content presentation, the user can receive a plurality of second requests that provide the user with opportunities to earn a second reward in exchange for performing a task associated each request. The user can receive the second reward by performing one of the tasks” —Anderson at summary ¶ [0005]; and Figures 4-5 of Anderson.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0204237 of Vajid Jafri (hereinafter “Jafri”) for “Special offerings can be included, such as offers that can be redeemed by frequent flyer points” —Jafri at ¶ [0040]; and “The platform can optimize actions of the customer with respect to the frequent flyer points, such as redeeming or suggesting redemption of frequent flyer points” —Jafri at ¶ [0167].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0232558 of Richard Postrel (hereinafter “Postrel”) for “The user may interactively select rewards to be redeemed, or the system may determine which rewards are to be redeemed based on a previously defined user profile rule or other third party profile rule (such as an issuer) (step 606)” —Postrel at ¶ [0065].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0350457 of Bryan A. Lauer (hereinafter “Lauer”) for “providing network and/or data access to subscribers that are passengers on a vehicle while in transit, such as airplane passengers during their flight.” —Lauer at ¶ [0001]; and “In FIG. 6, the system 10 determines to grant the customer a credit because the customer (John Doe) suffered a time delay event on XYZ airlines, flight 555 on Jan. 15, 2013. A credit can be redeemed by a customer for a service offered by the systems 10 or 11. The credit can be redeemed for use by the customer whenever the customer chooses to do so, so long as it is prior to an expiration time 610. In FIG. 6, the customer receives a credit 608 for one day of in-flight network service access with an expiration time 610 of Jan. 15, 2014” —Lauer at ¶ [0154].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0324827 of UPSTONE et al. (hereinafter “Upstone”) for
“The first user may then be rewarded based on various behaviors of the second user, and may receive a greater reward for greater interaction or additional sharing of the content by the second user. For example, if the second user simply views the shared content, there may be less of a reward than if the second user purchases a good or service associated with an advertisement or if the second user shares the content with other users” —Ahuja at ¶ [0063].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0141136 of Ahuja et al. (hereinafter “Ahuja”) for “a game becomes more complex (e.g., with more difficult tasks and/or less time to complete these tasks) once a player advanced to a next stage of the game…. the current node is associated with a second reward for completion, and the first reward for completion is higher than the second reward for completion. For instance, potential reward to a game player is higher once the player advanced to a next stage of the game” —Ahuja at ¶ [0118].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0282727 of KEEN et al. (hereinafter “Keen ‘727”) for redeeming an in-flight coupon —Keen ‘727 at ¶¶ [0260] and [0272].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0282684 of KEEN et al. (hereinafter “Keen ‘684”) for redeeming an in-flight coupon —Keen ‘684 at ¶¶ [0261] and [0273].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0339111 of Ross et al. (hereinafter “Ross”) for “users may be presented with three reward options to choose from” — Ross at ¶ [0042] and Figure 10 of Ross.
PNG
media_image1.png
590
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0238417 of Raymond Frelk (hereinafter “Frelk”) for “in flight entertainment systems (IFE systems)…. advertisements appear on the IFE system when passengers view the advertisements, redeem discounts, or otherwise provide information or perform acts requested by advertisements on the IFE system” —Frelk at ¶ [0002].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0173371 of Mark J. Krolick (hereinafter “Krolick”) for “In FIG. 5, a loyalty program server 502 works in concert with an airline system 504, and an airline touch point 506…. the airline touch point 506 can be… in-flight point-of-sale system, in-flight media system…etc.” —Krolick at ¶ [0042]; and “While in flight, an airline touch point 606 (e.g., a handheld point-of-sale system) may instruct a flight attendant to deliver a bottle of complementary champagne to the customer 610” —Krolick at ¶ [0057].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0005437 of Bethke et al. (hereinafter “Bethke”) as indicated in the non-final Office action dated 11/07/2024 for providing different incentive rewards to different users, such as when dynamically sizing incentive rewards for group actions, providing a first reward offer based on a first number of times members of a group of users complete an action, and providing a second group of reward offers with a magnitude greater than a magnitude of the first reward offer based on members completing the action a greater number of times than the first number of times with the second group of reward offers (e.g., Abstract of Bethke; and Bethke at ¶¶ [0046] and [0107]); “The incentive reward may also depend on the number of times or a frequency with which the user completes the location-based action relative to the number of times or a frequency with which other users complete the location-based action” —Bethke at ¶ [0107]; “rewards may be unique to the person to whom it is offered…. may receive a different incentive reward than the friends he influences; or, particular sets of friends of the player (e.g., the first set of friends to be influenced by the player) may receive different incentive rewards than other sets of friends” —Bethke at ¶ [0129].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0314488 of Keen et al. (hereinafter “Keen”) for an aircraft including a communications system having aircraft in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems (e.g., Keen at ¶¶ [0002] and [0013]) as well as PEDs carried by aircraft passengers (e.g., Keen at ¶¶ [0005] and [0013]); providing one or more offers to a user as including presenting the one or more offers via a display device for the user (e.g., “selectively displaying advertisements 620 from the IFE advertisement source 603 on the IFE passenger seat displays 604” —Keen at ¶ [0198]; “allow selected passengers to take advantage of specials or promotions offered by the airline” —Keen at ¶ [0011]; “airline may contact the passenger with special offers and incentives” —Keen at ¶ [0186]; and Keen at ¶¶ [0142] and [0206]) as well as providing a way for a passenger to redeem a coupon or voucher while on-board an aircraft (e.g., Keen at ¶ [0013]).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0314487 of KEEN et al. (hereinafter “Keen ‘487”) for redeeming an in-flight coupon —Keen ‘487 at ¶¶ [0240] and [0252].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0313826 of KEEN et al. (hereinafter “Keen ‘826”) for redeeming an in-flight coupon —Keen ‘826 at ¶¶ [0236] and [0248].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0055271 of Drefs et al. (hereinafter “Drefs”) for receiving rewards that a user can redeem by completing one or more actions to satisfy criteria — Drefs at ¶¶ [0013]–[0015] and [0018]; and “after completing travel on the first flight segment Jane will have earned sufficient travel reward points to upgrade her seat on the second flight segment. This can occur because OnTime Airlines is running a promotion during the month of June where travelers…can earn triple reward points on the domestic segment of the travelers' flights. —Drefs at ¶ [0041]); associating/combining rewards with criteria that a user needs to complete to earn the rewards —Drefs at ¶¶ [0013], [0018]–[0019], [0034] and [0037]); detecting user input/activity at a display interface — Drefs at ¶¶ [0025], [0033] and [0042]; “A customer…can use SkySales module 226 to book flights online via the internet. The Sky Sales module 226 interfaces to the New Skies module 202, which includes information about the customer in the customer database 208.” —Drefs at ¶ [0033]; “SkySales module 226 can be used by the customer to access the customer's loyalty account” —Drefs at ¶ [0049]; “access an interface for the loyalty module 206” —Drefs at ¶ [0035]; and “Jane notices that the current number of travel reward points in her frequent flyer account (e.g., 12,000) is not enough to upgrade her seat from coach to first class for any segment of the flight (e.g., Jane needs 15,000 points for the upgrade)” —Drefs at ¶ [0041]); “an airline may run a special for a period of time on certain flight segments where the reward points earned may be doubled” —Drefs at ¶ [0020]; “promotions sponsored by an airline. For example, an airline may run a promotion for the Minneapolis/St. Paul to New York City travel market, where flights between the two cities booked in the month of May with travel occurring during the month of July can earn triple award points” —Drefs at ¶ [0019]; “Jane notices that the current 1 needs 15,000 points for the upgrade)” —Drefs at ¶ [0041]; and Drefs at ¶¶ [0013], [0025], [0030], [0049] and [0065]); detecting that user has completed one or more actions to satisfy reward criteria Drefs at ¶¶ [0025]–[0026] and [0033]–[0035]; “calculate the travel reward points a customer has earned” —Drefs at ¶ [0029]; and “customer now has accrued enough travel reward points to upgrade the customer's seat” —Drefs at ¶ [0022]); and “reward points can be immediately viewed by a traveler accessing his or her travel rewards account” —Drefs at ¶ [0003]; Drefs at ¶¶ [0034] and [0049]; “outputting an identifier specifying the determined reward for presentation to the passenger” —Claim 7 of Drefs; “providing a detailed listing of award activity both earned and redeemed points” —Drefs at ¶ [0059]; “The customer can then receive a reward, such as an upgrade” —Drefs at ¶ [0049]; and “…The customer 102 can redeem the necessary amount of travel reward points 124 to upgrade his or her seat” —Drefs at ¶ [0013].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. 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 Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621