DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s “RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION” filed on January 16, 2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”). In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 12 and 15; cancelled no claim(s); and added no claim(s). Claims 3 and 14 were previously cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 are currently pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1, 12 and 20 remain independent claims.
As noted in previous Office actions, Figure 22 of Applicant’s drawings corresponds to each of independent Claims 1, 12 and 20. Examiner notes that original Claims 1-20 were presented by Applicant and, therefore, have been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution per MPEP §§ 819 and 821.03.
The present application (U.S. App. No. 17/952,664), which claims benefit to U.S. Patent Application No. 17/592,572 (currently issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,475,480), 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.
CIP
This patent application (U.S. App. No. 17/952,664) is a continuation-in-part (“CIP”) application of U.S. Application No. 17/592,572 filed on February 4, 2022 (“Parent Application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,475,480. See MPEP § 201.08. According to MPEP § 609.02 A. 2 and MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) is reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP § 609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant(s) is reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes all previous claim objections; therefore, the Examiner withdraws all previous claim objections.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes all previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); therefore, the Examiner withdraws all previous § 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains § 101 rejections to Claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner notes the following U.S. Patent Application Numbers filed by Applicant:
17/592,572 (granted); 17/952,648 (appealed); and 17/592,665 (appealed).
Examiner notes 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”.
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 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 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 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 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 purchasing/ordering incentives (e.g., gift card/voucher entitlements) for recipients and managing/monitoring status of the incentives {e.g., a number of incentive recipients being greater than number of incentives (e.g., gift cards) in a bulk order to be fulfilled so purchaser can purchase more (“purchasing the outstanding number” as recited) by adding an outstanding number of incentives to the bulk order; “not successfully delivered” as recited in Claims 5 and 16; concepts depicted in Figures 23-24 of Applicant’s drawings; etc.} being provided to the recipients — [e.g., organizing and tracking the purchase, ordering, and redemption status of incentives is analogous to maintaining a ledger or a registry], as more particularly recited in Applicant’s pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements):
a communications module;
a computing device provided access to an application at a particular access level;
a structured database (i.e., to obtain from);
a digital file (i.e., to obtain from);
a plurality of electronic addresses of recipients (e.g., an updated electronic address);
an error message that includes a selectable interface element for purchasing;
an application programming interface (API) associated with an electronic mail server system to send from an email account hosted by the electronic mail server system to one or more of the electronic addresses;
an email error log;
each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of receiving, obtaining, determining, generating, assigning, automatically allocating, updating, populating, engaging, sending and providing;
(only Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims) a server computer system comprising: the communications module, a processor coupled with the communications module, and a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the processor, configure the processor;
(Claims 6, 9 and 17) one or more interface elements (e.g., a selectable interface element); (Claims 9-10) interfaces (e.g., a white label incentive interface, a customized incentive interface with the one or more interface elements);
(only Claim 11) digital cards;
(only independent Claim 12) a processor of a computer server system; and
(only independent Claim 20) a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions which, when executed, configure a processor.
However, ordering/purchasing incentives (e.g., gift card/voucher entitlements) for recipients and then managing/monitoring status of the incentives for the recipients {e.g., a number of incentive recipients being greater than number of incentives in a bulk order to be fulfilled so purchaser can choose to purchase more (“purchasing the outstanding number” as recited) by adding an outstanding number of incentives to the bulk order; “not successfully delivered” as recited in Claims 5 and 16; concepts depicted in Figures 23-24 of Applicant’s drawings; etc.}, 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” {e.g., see Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012), where the CAFC disallowed the patenting of “basic concept[s],” such as “processing information through a clearinghouse” as being an abstract fundamental economic practice} while 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, Applicant’s pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each pending claim 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 the underlying abstract idea of incentive management, such as, for example, monitoring status of incentives (e.g., gift card/entitlements) being provided to recipients {e.g., a number of incentive recipients being greater than number of incentives (e.g., gift cards) in a bulk order to be fulfilled so purchaser may want to purchase more (“purchasing the outstanding number” as recited) by adding an outstanding number of incentives to the bulk order; “not successfully delivered” as recited in Claims 5 and 16; concepts depicted in Figures 23-24 of Applicant’s drawings; etc.}. See 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 computerized network with a computing device (see Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings) to provide a graphical user interface (GUI) with at least one selectable interface element, such as illustrated in Figure 23 of Applicant’s drawings}, and amount to no more than combining Applicant’s abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of obtaining, receiving, determining, generating, assigning, automatically allocating, updating, populating, engaging, sending and providing, as further explained below. See Applicant’s specification explaining that Applicant’s “applications, modules, routines, processes, threads, or other software components implementing the described method/process may be realized using standard computer programming techniques and languages” (bolding and underlining emphases added by Examiner to ¶ [0300] of Applicant’s specification filed on 9/26/2022).
Examiner notes that albeit Applicant’s claimed subject matter merely communicates with “a computing device” and “an application programming interface associated with an electronic mail server system”, it may be worth noting that in Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the CAFC found that arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists in processing information was not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality per MPEP 2106.05(a)(I.)(viii.). Also see Trading Technologies International Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The claims are focused on providing information to
traders in a way that helps them process information … not on improving computers or technology.”; and “Like Electric Power, the purported advance ‘is a process of gathering and analyzing in
formation of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions.’ 830 F.3d at 1354.”). 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 12-19 is drawn to a method; however, the method steps do not recite, require, or indicate implementation by a particular machine since none of limitations recited in Applicant’s method claims are performed by any computer or processing device — recited use (in preamble of Claim 12) of “a processor of a computer server system” encompasses a situation where the processor does no more than assist/help a person perform such steps/processes or thoughts when the person is merely using the computer server system, for instance. Even if a computer/machine was implied in method Claims 12-19, Applicant’s claim limitations taken individually and in combination would be merely instructions to implement the 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 computerized network with a computing device (see Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings) to provide a graphical user interface (GUI) with at least one selectable interface element, such as illustrated in Figure 23 of Applicant’s drawings}, and having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of obtaining, receiving, determining, generating, assigning, automatically allocating, updating, populating, engaging, sending and providing. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in the Claims 1-10 and 20 are performed by a generically recited “a processor”, these claim limitations 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 computerized network with a computing device (see Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings) to provide a graphical user interface (GUI) with at least one selectable interface element, such as illustrated in Figure 23 of Applicant’s drawings}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of obtaining, receiving, determining, generating, assigning, automatically allocating, updating, populating, engaging, sending and providing. As mentioned above, Applicant’s claim elements in addition to Applicant’s abstract idea include:
a communications module;
a computing device provided access to an application at a particular access level;
a structured database (i.e., to obtain from);
a digital file (i.e., to obtain from);
a plurality of electronic addresses of recipients (e.g., an updated electronic address);
an error message that includes a selectable interface element for purchasing;
an application programming interface (API) associated with an electronic mail server system to send from an email account hosted by the electronic mail server system to one or more of the electronic addresses;
an email error log;
each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of receiving, obtaining, determining, generating, assigning, automatically allocating, updating, populating, engaging, sending and providing;
(only Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims) a server computer system comprising: the communications module, a processor coupled with the communications module, and a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the processor, configure the processor;
(Claims 6, 9 and 17) one or more interface elements (e.g., a selectable interface element); (Claims 9-10) interfaces (e.g., a white label incentive interface, a customized incentive interface with the one or more interface elements);
(only Claim 11) digital cards;
(only independent Claim 12) a processor of a computer server system; and
(only independent Claim 20) a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions which, when executed, configure a processor.
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 obtaining, receiving, determining, generating, assigning, automatically allocating, updating, populating, engaging, sending and providing — 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 generic computer implementations known to the industry. Again, it is worth nothing that Applicant’s specification explains that Applicant’s “applications, modules, routines, processes, threads, or other software components implementing the described method/process may be realized using standard computer programming techniques and languages” (bolding and underlining emphases added by Examiner to ¶ [0300] of Applicant’s specification filed on 9/26/2022). 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/processes of obtaining, receiving, determining, generating, assigning, automatically allocating, updating, populating, engaging, sending and providing, 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 obtaining, receiving and populating 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)}; each of the recited steps of determining and generating encompasses a data recognition/inquiry function or retrieving 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 assigning, automatically allocating, and updating encompasses a data saving or depositing function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Cyberfone”; and 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 storage}; and each of the steps of engaging, sending, automatically allocating, and providing 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)}. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility test 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 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on January 16, 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to § 112(b), but not persuasive with respect to § 101.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Pages 9-11) Applicant asserts that the pending claims, as currently amended, are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Arguments
Please see § 101 rejections above regarding Applicant’s pending claims being drawn to ineligible subject matter under § 101 in view of considering all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole.
January 2024: It may be worth being mindful that on pages 8-9 of an amendment filed in January 2024, Applicant argued that Applicant’s claimed subject matter allegedly “provides technical advantages in efficiency in managing bulk orders of incentives…”. However, Applicant's January 2024 argument in view of Applicant’s disclosure amounted to no more than a speculative/conclusory allegation that Applicant’s pending claims provide “provides technical advantages” to support an invention under § 101. Examiner noted that mere managing of orders encompasses an abstract idea.
April 2024: In April 2024, Applicant generally argued on pages 8-9 of Applicant’s filed response, that the pending subject matter “solves problems” with the “problems relating to electronic fulfillment of bulk orders of incentives” (italic and bolding emphases added by Examiner) without explaining what problem(s) might be solved or whether the claimed solution actually accomplishes any of the alleged improvements and, therefore, Examiner noted that Applicant's argument amounted to no more than a speculative/conclusory allegation that Applicant’s claims supported an invention under § 101. Examiner noted that Applicant's alleged improvement (“solves problems” without identifying any problem) appeared to be no more than a desired or intended result that was not required to be performed or achieved based on the language recited in Applicant’s claims. In addition, Applicant also asserted, on page 9 of Applicant’s April 2024 amendment, that the claims are “particular to the Internet” and are “necessarily rooted in computer technology” similar to the 101 analysis in the DDR Holdings case. However, unlike DDR, Examiner noted that Applicant’s claims did not disclose any improvement or inventive concept rooted in technology. Examiner noted that a graphical user interface (GUI) with a selectable interface element appeared to be mere application of an abstract concept to a technological field.
February 2025: In February 2025 amendment, Applicant argued on pages 9-10 of Applicant’s amendment, that the claimed subject matter “solves problems” with the “problems related to automated bulk fulfillment of bulk orders of digital incentives” (italic and bolding emphases added by Examiner) and then listed what “Applicant’s claimed subject matter involves:” (bolding and underlining emphases added by Examiner) without explaining what problem(s) was actually solved or whether Applicant’s subject matter actually accomplished any of the alleged improvements and, therefore, Examiner noted that Applicant's argument amounted to no more than a speculative/conclusory allegation that Applicant’s claims support an invention under § 101.
In addition, on page 10 of Applicant’s Amendment filed in February 2025, Applicant asserted that Applicant’s claimed subject matter uses “structured data in the form of digital lists”. However, Examiner noted that mere “obtaining…from a structured data” and “obtaining…from a digital file”, as currently recited in Applicant’s independent claims, encompasses insignificant pre-solution activity with the step/process of obtaining encompassing a data input/loading or retrieval 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)}. In addition, the Examiner noted that “obtaining…from a structured data” and “obtaining…from a digital file” are functions that can be performed by a human and/or virtually all general purpose computers. Examiner noted that 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.
Furthermore, on page 11 of Applicant’s February 2025 Amendment, Applicant argued that the claims recite “a technology-specific solution to a technology-specific program” and are “necessarily rooted in computer technology” similar to the 101 analysis in the DDR Holdings case. However, unlike DDR, Applicant’s claims did not disclose any “technology-specific solution” or any improvement or inventive concept rooted in technology. A graphical user interface (GUI) with a selectable interface element (e.g., see Figures 23-24 of Applicant’s drawings, for instance) appeared to be mere application of an abstract concept to a technological field. Consequently, Applicant's February 2025 arguments constituted no more than a general allegation that the February 2025 claims supported a patentable invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
April 2025: In Applicant’s April 2025 Amendment, Applicant argued on page 8 of Applicant’s Amendment, that the claimed subject matter “addresses computer-centric problems” with the “problems that are rooted in technology” (italic and bolding emphases added by Examiner) and then listed what “Applicant’s claimed subject matter involves:” (bolding and underlining emphases added by Examiner) and, on page 9 of the April 2025 Amendment, “directly improve computer functionality” without explaining what problem(s) was actually solved or whether Applicant’s subject matter actually accomplished any of the alleged improvements and, therefore, Examiner noted that Applicant's argument amounts to no more than a speculative/conclusory allegation that Applicant’s April 2025 claims support an invention under § 101.
▐ January 2026: In Applicant’s January 2026 Amendment, Applicant notes that Claim 1 “performs…server-side operations” (page 9), which Examiner agrees is true. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that “Applicant's claimed subject matter addresses a technical problem that arises in networked computer systems that perform bulk digital fulfillment, namely maintaining consistent system state and reliable delivery confirmation” (underlining emphasis added by Examiner to page 9 of Applicant’s Amendment) because “Like Electric Power, the purported advance ‘is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions.’ 830 F.3d at 1354.”). Examiner notes that a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., Applicant’s recited “determine that a number of incentive recipients is greater than a number of the incentives [e.g., gift cards]…by an outstanding number”), such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1 for “A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability …” as encompassing a mental process per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D).
Accordingly, upon reconsideration, Applicant’s pending claims remain directed to non-statutory subject matter and, therefore, are appropriately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 Office action:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0216999 of PRONSKI et al. (hereinafter “Pronski”) for “REAL-TIME VIRTUAL GIFT CARD PURCHASING” —Title of Pronski.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0285513 of KADE et al. (hereinafter “Kade”) for “issuing an error message when selection of an inappropriate date occurs …. generating the error message when selection of an inappropriate date occurs” and “error message may cause the computing device to include a selectable option to… vary the specified amount” —Kade at ¶¶ [0190] and [0199].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0260834 of Stuckey et al. (hereinafter “Stuckey”) for “retailers offer Egift cards for sale online. These gift cards generally include a code” —Stuckey at ¶ [0003]; and “If the fingerprint attributes show up flags for fraud or manual review the order is cancelled and an image is not generated and is not sent” —Stuckey at ¶ [0122].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0225735 of Glass et al. (hereinafter “Glass '735”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0144313 of GARDNER et al. (hereinafter “Gardner”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0255926 of Glass et al. (hereinafter “Glass ‘926”) for “Gift cards typically comprise a stored value card” and “a stored value design and distribution portal…that exposes a sponsor portal interface for receiving user supplied information for customizing a stored value card from a sponsor of the stored value card, and generates a stored value card design using the user supplied information in which the stored value card design is stored in a repository. Once generated, the service then publishes, using one or more second portal interfaces, the stored value card design for purchase as a stored value card by a consumer from the repository, and transmits the stored value card to the consumer” —Glass ‘926 at ¶¶ [0005]–[0006].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No 2017/0161823 of Glass et al. (hereinafter “Glass '823”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0232480 of EREZ et al. (hereinafter "Erez") for Figure 11 of Erez showing "acceptance icon/button" for Gift; and "The gift card section 614 is generated by the gift transaction system 102 of FIG. 1 as a decorated printable card to send to the recipient. The gift card section 614 can include the gift icon 616. The gift icon 616 is a representation of the gift or set of gifts to be sent by the buyer. The gift icon 616 can be an image, an animation, or an interactive multimedia object, such as an interactive image capable of being zoomed or rotated. The location of elements in the gift card section 614, the text within the gift card section 614, font size and style of various texts in the gift card section 614 are all customizable via the buyer interface 600. The buyer interface 600 can include templates to customize the gift card section 614. The gift card section 614 can be formatted to be printable into various standard gift card sizes" —Erez.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0036758 (hereinafter “Glass”) for “online gift delivery confirmation system 100 …may be used in conjunction with any suitable online gifting platform that … sells any type of gift that is digitally transmitted to a recipient. For example, the online gift ordering application 104 may include a stored value card activation application conducts a financial transaction for a stored value card with a customer, and facilitates transmission of the stored value card to a recipient selected by the customer. Additional details related to the stored value card ordering system is described in U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/737,731, filed Dec. 14, 2012, and entitled “Online Personalized Gifting System,” which is a continuation in part of application Ser. No. 13/273,220, filed Oct. 13, 2011, and entitled “Online Personalized Gifting System.” The contents of application Ser. Nos. 61/737,731 and 13/273,220 are both incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0356649 of Glass et al. (hereinafter “Glass '649”) for Figures 28-33 of Glass '649; a custom incentive interface —Figure 28 of Glass '649.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0317711 of Glass et al. (hereinafter “Glass '711”) for “MERCHANT ONSITE PERSONALIZATION GIFTING PLATFORM” —Title of Glass '711.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0262183 of GERVAIS et al. (hereinafter “Gervais”) for “automatically populate interfaces facilitating electronic transactions” —Abstract of Gervais; and “present a notification that alerts user 110 to the suspended purchase transaction” —Gervais at ¶ [0100].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0325671 of Glass et al. (hereinafter “Glass '671”) for “personalized webpage gifting system…that includes a server that generates a graphical user interface (GUI) …for receiving recipient information associated with a recipient” —Glass '671 at ¶ [0005]; and “purchaser is then prompted to select one or more gift cards” —Glass '671 at ¶ [0053].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0304605 of Glass et al. (hereinafter “Glass '605”) for “A personalized gift card creation system and method includes providing an application to be executed on a computing device in which the application includes a peripheral application program interface (API) for interfacing with one or more peripheral devices of the computing device. A server in communication with the application generates a graphical user interface (GUI) on the computing device using the application, receives at least one of user-supplied textual, audio, or video content from the one or more peripheral devices using the application, and generates a gift card holder from the received user-supplied content. The server also receives information associated with a merchant of a gift card and a monetary amount to be associated with the gift card, and transmits the gift card holder and the gift card to a recipient.” —Abstract of Glass '605.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0299194 of Snyder et al. (hereinafter “Snyder”) for "a bulk purchase interface may include fields in which the purchaser can enter denominations, recipient information, and/or customized messages for virtual gift cards any number of recipients. For example, the purchaser may select (or upload) a background image that will be used for all the bulk-purchased virtual gift cards and then enter denominations, recipient information, and/or customized messages for a plurality of recipients.... the purchaser may be given the option to specify the same denomination and/or the same customized message for a plurality of recipients.... the interface may allow the purchaser to upload a text file, spreadsheet file, or similar file containing denominations, recipient information, and/or customized messages for any number of recipients, instead of entering such information by hand into the interface" —Snyder at ¶ [0126].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0055296 of David A. Nelson (hereinafter “Nelson”) for “utilize a single electronic delivery process 304 to delivery and manage all the gift cards 306 maintained by different gift card programs, and ensure that the gift cards issued on behalf of all the gift card programs are compatible with the merchant's stored value tracking system.” —Nelson at ¶ [0063]; and Figure 5A of Nelson showing “Status” of various gift cards with barcodes, such as “Pending” and “Delivered – Email” —Figure 5A of Nelson.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0199712 of Charles Rosenblatt (hereinafter “Rosenblatt”) for “Automatically Distributing Gifts To Recipients On Behalf Of Customers” —Title of Rosenblatt; “allow a customer 112 to select financial gift cards (illustrated by icon 302) for delivery to various recipients 114, such as the customer's friends, relatives, or other associates. Exemplary web page 300 illustrates such identified gift card recipients at data field 304. Web page 300 also illustrates a data field 306 identifying specified dates and times at which system 100 is to distribute the selected gift cards, as well as the status of any such delivered gift card…. as well as a selectable EDIT button 312 to modify previously entered gift distribution information.” —Rosenblatt at ¶ [0040]; and “gift distribution information may include a recipient address, a gift card preference, and/or other relevant information for distribution of gift cards. The address may be a…e-mail address…”—Rosenblatt at ¶ [0032].
U.S. Patent No. 10,984,411 issued to Hayes et al. (hereinafter “Hayes”) for a Gift Card Maker —Figures 28-29 of Hayes; and “merchant gift card services for B2B accounts…. a seller B2B registered user, such as a business owner or professional who may be a local retailer, creates and posts assets. These assets may comprise… gift cards of different styles and monetary values, and may be defined by a set of rules and properties that the B2B user specifies. In the B2B context, a buyer B2B registered user might purchase assets in bulk from the seller” —Specification at (220) of Hayes.
U.S. Patent No. 6,370,514 issued to Marc A. Messner (hereinafter “Messner”) for “The purchaser of a gift certificate can them elect to have it delivered via…e-mail…. Delivery of the voucher, according to the method selected by the purchaser, is then attempted, and if successful, the purchaser is notified that the gift certificate has been successfully delivered. If delivery is unsuccessful, the purchaser is contacted and asked to give alternative delivery directions” —Background/Summary of Messner.
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