DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 9/10/2025.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 2, 3, 10, and 11 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-16 are pending and have been examined.
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, 4-9, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 4-8 are directed to a method. Claims 9 and 12-16 are directed to a system. Thus, on their face they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A prong 1:
The following limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely descriptive of abstract concepts:
Claim 1:
receiving, by an entity, (i) an identification of a product purchased by a user, and (ii) contact information of the user, wherein receiving the identification comprises receiving an image depicting a receipt indicating that the product was purchased and performing an image analysis on the image to determine that the product is included on the receipt;
storing, by the entity, the contact information of the user;
transmitting, to the user, an offer to review the product, wherein the user (i) receives a review of the product, and (ii) transmits the review of the product to a repository separate from the entity, and wherein the review of the product comprises the contact information of the user, and wherein the repository (a) scrubs, from the review of the product, the contact information of the user, (b) stores the contact information of the user, and (c) avails the review of the product with the contact information scrubbed therefrom via an entity associated with the product; and
during when the user views an indication that the review has been submitted:
continuously querying from the repository, for a set of contact information associated with a set of users;
determining that the contact information of the user, as stored by the entity, is included in the set of contact information retrieved from the repository; and
in response to determining that the contact information of the user is included in the set of contact information:
automatically applying a reward to an account of the user, and
transmitting, to the user, a notification of the reward
display, after the user views the indication that the review has been submitted, an indication that the reward has been applied to the account of the user
Claim 9:
receive (i) an identification of a product purchased by the user, and (ii) contact information of the user, wherein to receive the identification comprises to receive from an entity, an image depicting a receipt that the product was purchased and to perform an image analysis on the image to determine that the product is included on the receipt;
store the contact information of the user;
transmit, to the user, an offer to review the product, wherein the user (i) receives a review of the product, and (ii) transmits the review of the product to a repository separate from the entity, wherein the review of the product comprises the contact information of the user, and wherein the repository (a) scrubs, form the review of the product, the contact information of the user, (b) stores the contact information of the user, and (c) avails the review of the product with the contact information scrubbed therefrom via an entity associated with the product, and
during when the user views an indication that the review has been submitted:
continuously query from the repository, for a set of contact information associated with a set of users;
determine that the contact information of the user, as stored, is included in the set of contact information retrieved from the repository, and
in response to determining that the contact information of the user is included in the set of contact information:
automatically apply a reward to an account of the user, and
transmit, to the user, a notification of the reward,
display, after the user views the indication that the review has been submitted, an indication that the reward has been applied to the account of the user
The following dependent claim limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely further descriptive of abstract concepts:
Claims 4, 12:
wherein receiving the identification of the product purchased by the user comprises:
retrieving, from an additional repository associated with the user, a record indicating that the product was purchased.
Claims 5, 13:
wherein the entity offers the product for sale, and wherein the repository sends the review of the product with the contact information scrubbed therefrom to the entity.
Claims 6, 14:
after receiving the identification of the product, determining, the reward associated with the user completing the review of the product.
Claims 7, 15:
wherein the account of the user identifies the contact information of the user.
Claims 8, 16:
wherein continuously querying, by the entity from the repository, the set of contact information associated with the set of users comprises: continuously querying, from the repository, for (i) the set of contact information associated with the set of users, and (ii) a set of products for which the set of users have completed a set of reviews.
The claims provide a manner of determining a user has purchased a product and offering them an opportunity to review the product in exchange for a reward. The user provides the review, their contact information is removed from the review. A check is done to see if contact information of the user who submitted the review matches with contact information stored by the system that offered the user the opportunity to review the product. If the contact information matches then the user is provided with a reward. Thus, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims embody certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, such activity is in the form of commercial interactions (in the form of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors).
Step 2A prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: at least one processor of a server computer (claim 1, 4, 6, 8) with memory (claim 1); online platform (claim 1, 9); electronic device of a user (claim 1, 9), first user interface of an application executed by the electronic device (claim 1, 9); digital repository (claim 1, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16); website (claim 1, 5, 9, 13); second user interface of the application (claim 1, 9); API (claim 1, 8, 9, 16); digital reward (claim 1, 6, 9, 14); third interface of the application (claim 1, 9); digital image (claim 1, 9); image analysis (claim 1, 9); additional digital repository (claim 4, 12); digital record (claim 4, 12); transceiver in communication with an electronic device of a user (claim 9); memory storing a set of computer-readable instructions (claim 9); at least one processor interfacing with the transceiver and the memory, and configured to execute the set of computer-readable instructions (claim 9, 12, 14, 16);
The at least one processor of a server computer, with memory, electronic device of a user, digital repository, additional digital repository, transceiver in communication with an electronic device of a user, memory storing a set of computer-readable instructions, API, and at least one processor interfacing with the transceiver and the memory, and configured to execute the set of computer-readable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to applying the abstract idea using generic computing components. (See spec [0063]-[0081]) The computing devices are merely used to process data (determining, applying, performing, avail, access, apply, scrubs), send and receive data (receiving, transmitting, retrieving, continuously querying), and store data (storing). The repositories and memory are merely used to store data. The transceiver is used for the sending of data. Thus, none of the computing devices improve computer technology or a technical field. Further, the API is merely used as a mechanism to send and receive data. Nothing in claims improves API technology or a technical field. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The first user interface of an application executed by the user electronic device, online platform, second user interface, third user interface, website, digital reward, digital image, and digital record merely provide a general link to performing the abstract concepts in a particular technological environment (i.e. online/on computers). The fact that the reward, image, and record are “digital” provides implementing these concepts on a computer as opposed to on paper or any other medium. The user first, second, and third interface provides no specific interface elements that could be considered an improvement to interface technology or a technical field. The interface is merely used for generic displaying. Further, the website is merely the entity used to provide the reviews as opposed printing them on paper, putting them in magazines, or publishing them in any other medium. The online platform is merely the environment in which the abstract concepts are implemented (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The image analysis is recited at a high level of generality. The claims provide no specific technique used such as to provide an improvement in computer image analysis or the technical field. Therefore, the use of the computer to provide image analysis does not go beyond the “apply it” level of implementation (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly, as above with regard to practical application, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept as they merely provide generic computing components used as a tool to implement the abstract idea and provide a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use.
As a result, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding prior art rejections:
The examiner was unable to find a reasonable combination of references to teach each and every limitation of the claims in the context of the invention. Further, the examiner was unable to find an adequate combination of references to teach the following limitations:
“during when the electronic device displays a second interface of the application indicating that the review has been submitted:
continuously querying, by the at least one processor from the digital repository via an application programming interface (API), for a set of contact information associated with a set of users,
determining, by the at least one processor, that the contact information of the user, as stored in the memory of the server computer, is included in the set of contact information retrieved from the digital repository, and
in response to determining that the contact information of the user is included in the set of contact information: automatically applying, by the at least one processor, a digital reward to an account of the user, and
transmitting, to the electronic device of the user, a notification of the digital reward, wherein the electronic device displays, via a third interface of the application, an indication that the digital reward has been applied to the account of the user.”
Specifically, the examiner could not find an adequate combination of references to teach performing all of the steps cited above while the second interface displaying that the review has been submitted it displayed on the user electronic device.
As a result, such rejections have been withdrawn.
The closest prior art is Brinkerhoff (US 6,963,848) which teaches identifying users who have recently purchased items and contacting them with an offer to review the product. The offer can be sent to the user by way of email. The user can submit the review by email and the review can be authenticated by matching the email address that the review has been sent from with the email address on file and matching it to the user’s purchase history that corresponds to the email address. The user can be rewarded for submitting the product review.
Brinkerhoff does not expressly teach scrubbing contact information form a submitted review, and while a second interface indicating the review has been submitted is displayed on the electronic device: continuously querying the digital repository via an API for a set of contact information associated with a set of users, determining that the contact information of the user who submitted the review matches the contact information for the offer to review the product, providing the reward based on the matching, and showing a third interface indicating that the reward has been applied to the account of the user.
Brock et al (US 2020/0294094) teaches taking the contact information submitted for a transaction and matching it to stored contact information corresponding to an offer. Upon the contact information for the offer matching the contact information submitted in the transaction the user received a reward.
Smith et al (US 2016/0379184) teaches scrubbing a review of personal information before it is used for advertising purposes.
Aviyam et al (US 2021/0200943) teaches continuously querying using an API to obtain updated information.
Ramer (US 2007/0073723) teaches an interface that would be shown to a user while they wait for background tasks to be performed.
Arafat et al (US 2015/0278826) teaches an ecommerce website that allows users who have purchased an item to submit a product review for that item. The reviews can then be shown to other users to influence purchasing on the site.
Gemmell et al (US 2011/0320250) teaches a social network that rewards users for providing product reviews. Users of the social network can purchase items directly through the social network and the product reviews can be used as advertising.
Lang (US2019/0122286) teaches providing rewards for providing product reviews.
Kim et al (US 2022.0358572) teaches verifying a product review and identifying a user ID associated with the review in order to provide the user with a reward.
Schultz (US 2002.0188561) teaches verifying a user purchased a product based on analyzing a receipt of the user and allowing the user to write a product review based on the information identified in the receipt
Cooper (US 2021/0374813) teaches prompting a user to write a product review for a product they have recently purchased.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has considered but does not find persuasive applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC 101.
The examiner finds that the inclusion of providing a “digital” receipt and using image analysis, looked at both individually and as a whole with the rest of the claim limitations, does not provide practical application or an inventive concept. The fact that the receipt is “digital” merely provides that the receipt is provided in a computer environment, no different than a paper receipt. Further, the claims recite no particular image analysis methodology. The mere high level use of “image analysis” does not go beyond the “apply it” level and clearly does not improve image analysis technology or a technical field.
Further, with regard to cross referencing data, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Checking that one piece of data stored on a list somewhere with another piece of data does not improve technology or a technical field. This is merely an abstract idea and applicant is implementing the abstract idea in a computing environment. The computer itself is not improved in any way.
As a result, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 CHRISTOPHER STROUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraff can be reached at (571) 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHRISTOPHER STROUD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621B
/CHRISTOPHER STROUD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621