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 .
Response to Amendment
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed on 9/12/2025. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-3, 6, 9-12, 14, 17, and 19-28 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “he rear face” in line 7 should be replaced with “the rear face.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-3, 6, 9-12, 14, 17, and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-3, 6, 21-23, and 28
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, independent claim 1 recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
providing indications of loyalties to obtain an offer associated with a vendor, the indications including remaining loyalties to achieve the offer;
receiving a selection of a first indication of the indications of the loyalties to complete a first loyalty of the loyalties to achieve the offer;
verifying the first indication to complete the first loyalty based on an authentication code associated with the vendor, wherein the first indication is verifiable based on the first authentication code and a second indication to complete a first remaining loyalty is verifiable based on a second authentication code associated with the vendor;
based on verifying the first indication, modifying the first indication to designate the first indication as fulfilled, wherein the first remaining loyalty is to be a fulfilled loyalty based on the second authentication code; and
providing the offer associated with the vendor based on modifying a final indication of the remaining loyalties, such that each of the remaining loyalties are designated as fulfilled to receive the offer from the vendor.
As noted above, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the limitations above describe tracking loyalties (e.g., visits and purchases) of consumers for a particular vendor and rewarding consumers who complete loyalties with an offer. This describes a marketing or sales activity similar to punching holes in a loyalty punch card and providing an offer when all holes are punched.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of:
[providing indications of loyalties] at an interface of a user device and through an application downloaded on the user device, an electronic loyalty card having a front face and a rear face, the front face having a link to general details about the electronic loyalty card and the rear face having a link to details about the offer; and
providing an electronic icon [for the offer].
The additional limitations when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because each of the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, [providing indications of loyalties] at an interface of a user device and through an application downloaded on the user device, an electronic loyalty card having a front face and a rear face, the front face having a link to general details about the electronic loyalty card and the rear face having a link to details about the offer is recited at a high level of generality and only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a generic “graphical user interface on a display screen of a user computing device” – see spec [0061]) or merely uses a generic computing device capable of displaying data as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Examiner notes that specifying that the interface displays a front and rear face of an electronic loyalty card merely describes the placement of displayed content (displaying virtual card faces) on a generic user interface as opposed to the technological configuration/functionality of the interface. Moreover, simply displaying generic links to information on the interface merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or uses the computer a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., providing generic links to generic information and specific information about an offer).
Further, providing an electronic icon for the offer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than displaying an icon associated with an offer on a generic user interface. Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception in a particular technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6, 21-23, and 28 are rejected on a similar rational to the claims upon which they depend. Specifically:
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the electronic icon is provided via a user device through an application downloaded” which is recited at a high level of generality and only generally inks the abstract idea to a particular to a particular technological environment (a device to display the icon via a generic application). Examiner also notes that with respect to the application being downloaded, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality and paragraph [0065] of Applicant’s published specifies that “the vendor offer application can be downloaded from a remote server, such as vendor offer manager, a website, or a mobile application store . . . the manner in which the vendor offer application is obtained by the user device is not intended to limit the scope of embodiments of the present invention.”
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the electronic icon is provided for display via an application based on location data provided by a user device associated with user login credentials and the remaining loyalties to achieve the offer” which is recited at a high level of generality. Providing the icon based on the remaining loyalties to achieve the offer merely further describes the abstract idea. Further, Examiner notes that the location data provided by the user device can simply be user provided information (such as a city) – see paragraph [0096] of Applicant’s published specification which recites “a user might provide a location.” Additionally, Examiner notes that while the claim recites the user device is associated with user login credentials, the claim does not positively recite to logging into a device. At this level of generality, the limitation merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a user device to display the icon based on location information and remaining loyalties).
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the electronic icon for the offer is provided via a website accessible via a web browser” which is recited at a high level of generality and only generally links the abstract idea to particular technological environment (i.e., a generic website on a generic web browser).
Dependent claim 21 recites “wherein modifying the first indication includes causing the first indication to be faded to designate the first indication as fulfilled” which is recited at a high level of generality. Examiner notes that the limitation merely describes the content of what is displayed (i.e., a faded indication). In other words – this limitation relates to displaying data on an already configured user interface, rather than the technical configuration of an interface. Merely displaying a faded indication on a generic user interface amounts to no more than displaying data and only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (the generic display device).
Dependent claim 22 recites “wherein modifying the first indication includes stamping the first indication to designate the first indication as fulfilled” which is recited at a high level of generality. Examiner notes that the limitation merely describes the content of what is displayed (i.e., a stamped indication). In other words – this limitation relates to displaying data on an already configured user interface, rather than the technical configuration of an interface. Merely displaying a stamped indication on a generic user interface amounts to no more than displaying data and only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (the generic display device).
Dependent claim 23 recites “wherein the indications of loyalties are provided based on receiving a selection of a search indication to initiate a search for available loyalties” which is recited at a high level of generality. The use of a generic computing device to search for loyalties only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or merely uses a computer as a to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 28 further recites “further comprising facilitating a transaction based on the user device activating the electronic icon for the offer” which is recited at a high level of generality and merely generally links the abstract idea into a particular technological environment to perform a generic transaction based on input to a computing device.
Claims 9-12, 14, and 24-26
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, independent claim 9 recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
providing indications of loyalties to obtain an offer associated with a vendor, the indications including a first remaining loyalty to achieve the offer and a second fulfilled loyalty;
receiving a selection of the first remaining loyalty to achieve the offer;
verifying the first remaining loyalty is to be a fulfilled loyalty based on an authentication code associated with the vendor, wherein the first remaining loyalty is verifiable based on a first authentication code associated with a vendor, wherein a second remaining loyalty is verifiable based on a second authentication code associated with the vendor;
based on verifying the first remaining loyalty, modifying the first remaining loyalty as the fulfilled loyalty, wherein the first remaining loyalty is to be fulfilled based on the first authentication code; and
providing an offer associated with the vendor based on modifying the first remaining loyalty as the fulfilled loyalty.
As noted above, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the limitations above describe tracking loyalties (e.g., visits and purchases) of consumers for a particular vendor and rewarding consumers who complete loyalties with an offer. This describes a marketing or sales activity similar to punching holes in a loyalty punch card and providing an offer when all holes are punched.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 9 recites the additional limitations of:
[providing indications of loyalties] at an interface of a user device, an electronic loyalty card having a front face and a rear face, the rear face of the electronic loyalty card having a link to details about the offer;
providing an electronic icon [for the offer].
The additional limitations when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because each of the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, [providing indications of loyalties] at an interface of a user device, an electronic loyalty card having a front face and a rear face, the rear face of the electronic loyalty card having a link to details about the offer is recited at a high level of generality and only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a generic “graphical user interface on a display screen of a user computing device” – see spec [0061]) or merely uses a generic computing device capable of displaying data as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Examiner notes that specifying that the interface displays a front and rear face of an electronic loyalty card merely describes the placement of displayed content (displaying virtual card faces) on a generic user interface as opposed to the technological configuration/functionality of the interface. Moreover, simply displaying a generic link to information on the interface merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or uses the computer a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., providing a generic link to information about an offer).
Further, providing an electronic icon for the offer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than displaying an icon associated with an offer on a generic user interface. Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception in a particular technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 10-12, 14, and 24-26 are rejected on a similar rational to the claims upon which they depend. Specifically:
Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein the electronic icon is provided via the application downloaded on a user device based on receiving user login credentials” which is recited at a high level of generality. Providing the icon based via a generic application on a user device that a user has logged into merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 recites “wherein the electronic icon is provided for display via the application based on location data provided by the user device” which is recited at a high level of generality. Examiner notes that the location data provided by the user device can simply be user provided information (such as a city) – see paragraph [0096] of Applicant’s published specification which recites “a user might provide a location.” Providing an offer based on a location merely further limits the abstract idea and providing the icon for the offer for display via the application merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 recites “wherein the front face of the electronic loyalty card has a link to general details about the electronic loyalty card, such that the front face and the rear face are each viewable on the interface based on one or more selections at the interface” which is recited at a high level of generality and merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or uses the computer a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., providing a generic visual displays of the front and back side of a loyalty card and link to general information.).
Dependent claim 14 recites “wherein the application includes a search bar for searching for the vendor, and wherein the indications of loyalties are provided based on receiving an entry at the search bar” which is recited at a high level of generality. The use of a generic computing device to search for loyalties only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or merely uses a computer as a to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 24 recites “wherein the indications of loyalties are provided based on receiving a name of the vendor, a category associated with the vendor, and a location associated with the vendor” which only further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 25 recites “wherein verifying the first remaining loyalty is based on a number of visits at the vendor, the number of visits at the vendor being stored at a vendor offer manager that manages vendor offers from a plurality of different vendors” which only further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 26 recites “wherein verifying the first remaining loyalty is based on a number of purchases with the vendor stored at the vendor offer manager” which only further narrows the abstract idea.
Claims 17, 19-20, and 27
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, independent claim 17 recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
providing indications of loyalties to obtain an offer associated with a vendor, the indications including a first remaining loyalty and a second remaining loyalty to achieve the offer;
receiving a selection of a first indication of the indications of the loyalties to complete the first remaining loyalty to achieve the offer;
verifying the first indication to complete the first remaining loyalty based on a first authentication code associated with the vendor, wherein the first indication is verifiable based on the first authentication code;
receiving a selection of a second indication of the indications of the loyalties to complete the second remaining loyalty to achieve the offer;
verifying the second indication to complete the second remaining loyalty based on a second authentication code associated with the vendor, wherein the second indication to complete the second remaining loyalty is verifiable based on a second authentication code associated with the vendor;
based on verifying the first indication and the second indication, modifying the first indication and the second indication to designate the first indication and the second indication as fulfilled, wherein the first remaining loyalty is to be a fulfilled loyalty based on the first authentication code and wherein the second remaining loyalty is to be a fulfilled loyalty based on the second authentication code; and
providing an offer associated with the vendor based on modifying the first remaining loyalty as the fulfilled loyalty.
As noted above, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the limitations above describe tracking loyalties (e.g., visits and purchases) of consumers for a particular vendor and rewarding consumers who complete loyalties with an offer. This describes a marketing or sales activity similar to punching holes in a loyalty punch card and providing an offer when all holes are punched.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 17 recites the additional limitations of:
one or more computing devices;
a memory coupled to the one or more computing devices and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computing devices;
[providing indications of loyalties] at an interface of a user device and through an application downloaded on the user device;
[receiving a selection] through the application
providing an electronic icon [for the offer].
The additional limitations when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because each of the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the one or more computing devices coupled to memory to perform the operations merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or uses the one or more computing devices as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, providing indications of loyalties at interface of a user device and through an application downloaded on the user device and receiving a selection through an application is recited at a high level of generality and only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a generic “graphical user interface on a display screen of a user computing device” – see spec [0061] in a generic application) or merely uses a generic computing device capable of displaying data as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, providing an electronic icon for the offer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than displaying an icon associated with an offer on a generic user interface. Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception in a particular technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 19-20 and 27 are rejected on a similar rational to the claims upon which they depend. Specifically:
Dependent claim 19 recites “wherein the electronic icon is provided for display via an application based on location data provided by the user device associated with user login credentials” which is recited at a high level of generality. Examiner notes that the location data provided by the user device can simply be user provided information (such as a city) – see paragraph [0096] of Applicant’s published specification which recites “a user might provide a location.” Additionally, Examiner notes that while the claim recites the user device is associated with user login credentials, the claim does not positively recite to logging into a device. At this level of generality, the limitation merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a user device to display the icon based on location information).
Dependent claim 20 recites “wherein the electronic icon comprises a link to details about the offer, wherein the indications of loyalties are provided via the application on an electronic loyalty card having a front face and a rear face, and wherein the link is provided on the rear face of the electronic loyalty card” which is recited at a high level of generality. Examiner notes that paragraph [0124]-[0125] of applicant’s published specification recites “the selected electronic loyalty card can be displayed in any manner. For instance, an electronic loyalty card might resemble a physical loyalty card in that it might have a front face and a rear face of the card. The front face may include, or have links to, general details of the loyalty card, such as an identification of the loyalty card . . .The rear face of the loyalty card may include, or have links to, details related to an offer(s).” Examiner notes that the “electronic loyalty card” describes displaying indications of loyalty in one display element (i.e., the front) and a link to details about an offer in another display element (i.e. the back). Therefore, this limitation merely describes the content of what is displayed and provides a generic link to details about an offer. In other words – this limitation relates to displaying data on an already configured user interface, rather than the technical configuration of an interface. Merely displaying loyalties on a digital “front” of a card displayed on a device and providing a link on a digital “back” of a card displayed on a device amounts to no more than displaying data and providing a generic link and only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (the generic display device).
Dependent claim 27 recites “wherein the first authentication code indicates a first transaction by a user associated with a user device and the second authentication code indicates a second transaction by the user associated with the user device” which merely further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20120296716 (“Barbeau”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20120208641 (“Bogan”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20110179113 (“Thomas”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20120232976 (“Calman”).
Claim 9
As per claim 9, Barbeau teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon for performing a method comprising:
providing, at an interface of a user device, indications of loyalties to obtain an offer associated with a vendor, the indications including a first remaining loyalty to achieve the offer and a second fulfilled loyalty ([0051] “The virtual ‘punch’ card may indicate or illustrate the one or more offer generation criteria and/or the user's progress towards fully satisfying the one or more offer generation criteria. If, for example, the one or more offer generation criteria specify that the user purchase 5 cups of small coffee at any Dunkin Donut's location, the virtual “punch” card may illustrate or depict the criterion and provide an indication of the user's progress with respect to that criterion. In other words, the virtual “punch” card may provide an indication of the offer generation criteria and depict or illustrate how many cups of coffee the user has purchased, and, thus, how many more cups of coffee the user needs to purchase to fully satisfy that criterion.” Examiner interprets the virtual punch card as providing indications of loyalties to obtain an offer (e.g., the indications can display a number of coffee cups required to obtain an offer and the remaining number of coffee cups needed to be purchased to satisfy the offer criteria). And, [0058] further teaches a variety of types of indications of loyalties to obtain an offer – “The offer server may . . . identify[] or determining where, when, how many, or combinations thereof, one or more users are completing required tasks (e.g., purchases, visits, transactions, donations) or, in other words, at least partially satisfying the one or more offer generation criteria.”);
verifying the first remaining loyalty is to be a fulfilled loyalty based on an authentication code associated with the vendor ([0043] “the user may provide the employee of the merchant with his/her virtual ‘punch’ card (executing on the mobile device 104), the employee may provide the user with the data 260, in the form of a QR code, after the user has purchased one or more qualifying products or services, and the user, using the virtual “punch” card, scans the QR code into the mobile device. The virtual “punch” card may then illustrate or indicate that the scan was successful (by, for example, displaying or illustrating an additional “punch,” corresponding to the most recent purchase, on the user's virtual card).” And, [[0025] “the user may need to enter a code into an application executing on the device 104 wherein the code is only provided by the redemption entity at the time of the purchase or is otherwise only available within a physical location, such as displayed on a sign within a retail establishment. In one embodiment, the user may be required to provide their device to the merchant, or representative thereof, who enters the code themselves.” Examiner interprets the QR code (from [0043]) or the code that is manually entered in the user’s device by the user or merchant employee as the authentication code associated with the vendor. Examiner interprets confirming the scan was successful by displaying an additional punch corresponding to the purchase as verifying the first remaining loyalty is to be a fulfilled loyalty.);
based on verifying the first remaining loyalty, modifying the first remaining loyalty as the fulfilled loyalty ([0043] “the user may provide the employee of the merchant with his/her virtual ‘punch’ card (executing on the mobile device 104), the employee may provide the user with the data 260, in the form of a QR code, after the user has purchased one or more qualifying products or services, and the user, using the virtual “punch” card, scans the QR code into the mobile device. The virtual “punch” card may then illustrate or indicate that the scan was successful (by, for example, displaying or illustrating an additional “punch,” corresponding to the most recent purchase, on the user's virtual card).” And, [0051] “The virtual ‘punch’ card may indicate or illustrate the one or more offer generation criteria and/or the user's progress towards fully satisfying the one or more offer generation criteria. If, for example, the one or more offer generation criteria specify that the user purchase 5 cups of small coffee at any Dunkin Donut's location, the virtual “punch” card may illustrate or depict the criterion and provide an indication of the user's progress with respect to that criterion. In other words, the virtual “punch” card may provide an indication of the offer generation criteria and depict or illustrate how many cups of coffee the user has purchased, and, thus, how many more cups of coffee the user needs to purchase to fully satisfy that criterion.” Examiner interprets determining that the space was successful as verifying the remaining loyalty and the depicted punch corresponding to the purchase as modifying the first remaining loyalty as the fulfilled loyalty);
providing an electronic icon for the offer associated with the vendor based on modifying the first remaining loyalty as the fulfilled loyalty ([0051] “for example, the one or more offer generation criteria specify that the user purchase 5 cups of small coffee at any Dunkin Donut's location, the virtual “punch” card may illustrate or depict the criterion and provide an indication of the user's progress with respect to that criterion . . . If the user has previously purchased the 5 cups of coffee specified by the criterion, the virtual “punch” card may indicate that the user has fully satisfied or completed the one or more offer generation criteria, and is thus eligible to receive the associated one or more offers.” Examiner interprets the virtual “punch” card indicating that the user has satisfied all 5 cups of the offer criteria as modifying the first remaining loyalty as the fulfilled loyalty. And, [0011] “Once the offer server determines that the purchase represented by the data has caused the user to fully satisfy the one or more offer generation criteria for that user and the offer server provides the user with the one or more offers for financial incentives.” And, [0023] “displaying the redemption indicia on the display of their device . . . so that the merchant, or representative thereof, is able to perceive it, e.g., view, read, scan, receive.” And, [0025] “evaluate the satisfaction of the conditions and determine if they are satisfied in order to enable the redemption indicia to be revealed.” And, [0028] “The redemption indicia may be unique to the user and may include . . . an image.” Examiner interprets the redemption indicia displayed in response to the user completing the offer criteria (i.e., fulfilling the remaining loyalty) as providing the electronic icon for the offer.).
Barbeau teaches providing a first indication of the indications of loyalties (e.g., [0051] offer generation criteria such as a depiction of a cup of coffee to purchase) and teaches verifying the first indication based on an authentication code ([0043]) but not does explicitly teach the following feature taught by Bogan:
receiving a selection of the first remaining loyalty to achieve the offer ([0037] “task identifier may include text or graphics representing the task and presented on a webpage.” And, [0061] “the webpage may itself identify other tasks that the recipient may perform.” And, [0053] “the user may provide input identifying which task was completed.” And, [0067] “task-completion input is received from a user . . . The task-completion input may include selection of options presented on a website. In one instance, a user can log into a website and then select an option.” And, [0068] “The task-completion input may indicate which task was completed.” And, [0003] “Reward criteria may be defined, e.g., as a number of completed tasks, a specific set of completed tasks, etc. Task-completion data in the profile may be compared to reward criteria. If it is determined that the criteria has been met, reward distribution may be initiated.” Examiner interprets the tasks as indications of loyalties and completing a specific set of tasks to receive a reward as completing a loyalty(s) to achieve the offer. Examiner interprets receiving a selection of the task-completion option as receiving a selection of the first remaining loyalty.).
Barbeau discloses multiple loyalties to complete and verifying a loyalty with a code (see paragraph [0043] and [0025]) but does not explicitly teach the following feature taught by Bogan:
wherein the first remaining loyalty is verifiable based on a first authentication code associated with a vendor, wherein a second remaining loyalty is verifiable based on a second authentication code associated with the vendor ([0053] “Reward distributor may compare task-completion data to the reward criteria . . . It is estimated that the task was completed upon entry of a code (e.g., a unique or non-unique code), and the criteria would then be met . . . the reward criteria is completion of five tasks . . . compare a number of completed tasks in the recipient's account to the threshold to determine if the criteria was met . . . the reward criteria is completion of a set of specific tasks. Each task may be associated with a unique code . . . Entry of these inputs may result in an estimate that a specific task was completed, and a recipient's account may be updated.” Examiner notes that Barbeau discloses multiple loyalties and verifying the loyalties with a code but does not explicitly a first and second indication verifiable by first and second authentication codes respectively. Examiner relies on Bogan to teach that a unique code can be to verify each task).
Barbeau discloses modifying the first indication to designate the first indication as fulfilled by does not explicitly teach the following feature taught by Bogan:
wherein the first remaining loyalty is to be a fulfilled loyalty based on the first authentication code ([0053] “Reward distributor may compare task-completion data to the reward criteria . . . It is estimated that the task was completed upon entry of a code (e.g., a unique or non-unique code), and the criteria would then be met . . . the reward criteria is completion of five tasks . . . compare a number of completed tasks in the recipient's account to the threshold to determine if the criteria was met . . . the reward criteria is completion of a set of specific tasks. Each task may be associated with a unique code . . . Entry of these inputs may result in an estimate that a specific task was completed, and a recipient's account may be updated.” And, [0061] “the webpage may itself identify other tasks that the recipient may perform.” And, [0053] “the user may provide input identifying which task was completed.” And, [0067] “task-completion input is received from a user . . . The task-completion input may include selection of options presented on a website. In one instance, a user can log into a website and then select an option.” And, [0068] “The task-completion input may indicate which task was completed.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's claimed invention to modify Barbeau to include receiving a selection of the first remaining loyalty to achieve the offer; wherein the first indication is verifiable based on the first authentication code and a second indication to complete a first remaining loyalty is verifiable based on a second authentication code associated with the vendor; and wherein the first remaining loyalty is to be a fulfilled loyalty based on the second authentication code as taught by Bogan in order to “be able to confirm (e.g., to a reward-distributing company via an online communication) that the recipient performed the task” (Bogan [0036]) and so that “t[]he confirmation may be sent, for example, online using a webpage” (Bogan [0036]) as well as “allow recipients to log in using accounts” which “allow[s] tracking of multiple task completions” (Bogan [0061]) resulting in increased user convenience in reporting and tracking loyalty redemptions.
Barbeau teaches an electronic loyalty card ([0051] “the virtual punch card”) but does not explicitly teach the following feature taught by Thomas:
the electronic loyalty card having a front face and a rear face ([0036] “display 224-E shows the front of a virtual loyalty card . . . whereas display 224-F shows the back of the same virtual loyalty card.” And, [0038] “the back of the virtual loyalty card, display 224-F also includes a reproduction of the loyalty card number, the expiry date and a selectable area of touchscreen entitled “Visit our web site” that can be selected to cause display to shows a web-site hosted on the issuer server.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's claimed invention to modify the combination of Barbeau and Bogan to include an electronic loyalty card having a front face and a rear face, and wherein the link is provided on the rear face of the electronic loyalty card as taught by Thomas so that “the front and back of the virtual loyalty card is substantially an accurate facsimile of an actual loyalty card that is typically carried in a physical wallet” (Thomas [0036]) making the virtual loyalty card intuitive and easy to use for the customer.
Thomas teaches a selectable area of the mobile device touchscreen on the page displaying the rear face of the loyalty card which links to the web site but Barbeau, Bogan, and Thomas do not explicitly teach the link on the rear face of the electronic loyalty card having a link to details about the offer as taught by Calman ([0086] “virtual image award cup icon indicator 740. The user can select the indicator 740 by clicking on the icon in order to view more information about the reward offer as shown in FIG. 8.” And, [0052] “the indicator may provide the user with an internet hyperlink to further information on the object.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's claimed invention to modify the combination of Barbeau, Bogan, and Thomas to include wherein the electronic icon comprises a link to details about the offer as taught by Calman “in order to view more information about the reward offer” (Calman [0086]) and “quickly search and/or retrieve information from the other program without requiring additional authentication steps” (Calman [0047]) resulting in increased user convenience.
Claim 10
As per claim 10, Barbeau further teaches:
wherein the electronic icon is provided via an application downloaded on the user device ([0055] “provide the user with instructions for the loyalty program (e.g., details about the existing one or more offer generation criteria), and/or provide the user with a link to download the mobile app and/or the software necessary to participate in the loyalty program.” And, [0024] “application may be programmed to . . . to fully display the redemption indicia in a redeemable form.” Examiner interprets the redemption indicia in redeemable form as the electronic icon. And, [0051] “The offer server may . . . provide the user, via the app executing on the mobile device . . . visual representation (e.g., a chart, graph, punch card) of data indicative of . . . the user's completion or satisfaction of the one or more offer generation criterion . . . the offer server may provide the user, via the app executing on the mobile device and on a display of the mobile device, with a list or total or rewards points or dollars earned and/or a rewards catalog that includes the one or more offer generation criteria. . . . the offer server may provide the user, via the app executing on the mobile device, with the virtual “punch” card on a display of the mobile device . . . If the user has previously purchased the 5 cups of coffee specified by the criterion, the virtual “punch” card may indicate that the user has fully satisfied or completed the one or more offer generation criteria.”).
Barbeau teaches providing the electronic icon via an application but does not explicitly teach the following feature taught by Bogan:
[the electronic icon is provided] based on receiving user login credentials ([0020] “log onto a website and indicate that he completed the task . . . [i]f it is determined that the criteria has been met, a user may be able to: be informed of reward availability.” And, [0067] “task-completion input is received from a user . . . The task-completion input may include selection of options presented on a website. In one instance, a user can log into a website and then select an option.” And, [0061] “the webpage may be configured to allow recipients to log in using accounts.” And, [0062] “log-in information (e.g., a log-in name and a password).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's claimed invention to modify the combination of Barbeau, Bogan, Thomas, and Calman to include [the electronic icon is provided] based on receiving user login credentials as taught by Bogan in order to “be able to confirm (e.g., to a reward-distributing company via an online communication) that the recipient performed the task” (Bogan [0036]) and so that “t[]he confirmation may be sent, for example, online using a webpage” (Bogan [0036]) as well as “allow recipients to log in using accounts” which “allow[s] tracking of multiple task completions” (Bogan [0061]) resulting in increased user convenience in reporting and tracking loyalty redemptions.
Claim 11
As per claim 11, Barbeau further teaches:
wherein the electronic icon is provided for display via the application based on location data provided by the user device ([0024] “application may be programmed to . . . to fully display the redemption indicia in a redeemable form . . . for devices featuring GPS capability, the user may simply need to physically bring the device to, or remove the device, from a specific geographic location or region upon which the redemption indicia is automatically revealed. This may be set as a condition of the offer by an offeror which only wants the offer to be valid for one visit to the location, such as a particular retail venue, whether or not the user redeems the offer.” And, [0025] “the condition may include the geographic coordinates of one or more retail locations of the merchant such that the user may only reveal the redemption indicia when their device, and presumably the user themselves, are physically located within or substantially proximate to one of the specified retail locations.” Examiner notes that the redemption indicia (i.e., the electronic icon) is provided based on the geographic location of the user device.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20120296716 (“Barbeau”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20120208641 (“Bogan”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20110179113 (“Thomas”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20120232976 (“Calman”) as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20120310715 (“Singhal”).
Claim 14
As per claim 14, Barbeau providing indications of loyalties but does not explicitly teach the following feature taught by Singhal:
wherein the application includes a search bar for searching for the vendor, and wherein the indications of loyalties are provided based on receiving an entry at the search bar ([0039] “Each coupon file may be formatted with fields of, a product merchant id.” And, [0051] “The coupon database has fields for merchant id.” And, [0108] “providing for the user an efficient one step interface for access, search, and delivery of coupons.” And, [0059] “coupon system application that is hosted on the hardware.” And, [0070] “user/customer interface embodiment using a wireless mobile device to access and retrieve electronic coupons into the wireless mobile device . . . requires the user to search a coupon database.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's claimed invention to modify the combination of Barbeau, Bogan, Thomas, and Calman to include wherein the application includes a search bar for searching for the vendor, and wherein the indications of loyalties are provided based on receiving an entry at the search bar as taught by Singhal in order to “enable[] an efficient one-step search of available coupons in the coupon system” (Singhal [0071]) and provide “a better user experience” so that the user “can quickly find that information without having to navigate through many layers of search screens (Singhal [0071]).
Claims 17, 19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20120296716 (“Barbeau”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20120208641 (“Bogan”)
Claim 17
As per claim 17, Barbeau teaches a system comprising:
one or more computing devices ([0028] “an offer server, implemented as a computer having a processor and a memory.”);
a memory coupled to the one or more computing devices and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computing devices, cause the system to perform operations ([0028] “an offer server, implemented as a computer having a processor and a memory.”);
providing, at an interface of a user device and through an application downloaded on the user device, indications of loyalties to obtain an offer associated with a vendor via an interface, the indications including a first remaining loyalty and a second remaining loyalty to achieve the offer ([0055] “download the mobile app.” And, [0051] “The virtual ‘punch’ card may indicate or illustrate the one or more offer generation criteria and/or the user's progress towards fully satisfying the one or more offer generation criteria. If, for example, the one or more offer generation criteria specify that the user purchase 5 cups of small coffee at any Dunkin Donut's location, the virtual “punch” card may illustrate or depict the criterion and provide an indication of the user's progress with respect to that criterion. In other words, the virtual “punch” card may provide an indication of the offer generation criteria and depict or illustrate how many cups of coffee the user has purchased, and, thus, how many more cups of coffee the user needs to purchase to fully satisfy that criterion.” Examiner interprets the virtual punch card as providing indications of loyalties to obtain an offer (e.g., the indications can display a number of coffee cups required to obtain an offer and the remaining number of coffee cups needed to be purchased to satisfy the offer criteria). Examiner interprets each required task (e.g., the purchase of coffee cup) as a remaining loyalty where two remaining coffee cup purchases equates to a first remaining loyalty and a second remaining loyalty. And, [0058] further teaches a variety of types of indications of loyalties to obtain an offer – “The offer server may . . . identify[] or determining where, when, how many, or combinations thereof, one or more users are completing required tasks (e.g., purchases, visits, transactions, donations) or, in other words, at least partially satisfying the one or more offer generation criteria.”);
verifying the first indication to complete the first remaining loyalty based on a first authentication code associated with the vendor, wherein the first indication is verifiable based on the first authentication code; ([0043] “the user may provide the employee of the merchant with his/her virtual ‘punch’ card (executing on the mobile device 104), the employee may provide the user with the data 260, in the form of a QR code, after the user has purchased one or more qualifying products or services, and the user, using the virtual “punch” card, scans the QR code into the mobile device. The virtual “punch” card may then illustrate or indicate that the scan was successful (by, for example, displaying or illustrating an additional “punch,” corresponding to the most recent purchase, on the user's virtual card).” And, [0025] “the user may need to enter a code into an application executing on the device 104 wherein the code is only provided by the redemption entity at the time of the purchase or is otherwise only available within a physical location, such as displayed on a sign within a retail establishment. In one embodiment, the user may be required to provide their device to the merchant, or representative thereof, who enters the code themselves.” Examiner interpets the QR code (from [0043]) or the code that is manually entered in the user’s device by the user or merchant employee as the first authentication code associated with the vendor. Examiner interprets confirming the scan was successful by displaying an additional punch corresponding to the purchase as verifying the first indication to complete the first remaining loyalty);
verifying the second indication to complete the second remaining loyalty based on a second authentication code associated with the vendor ([0043] “the user may provide the employee of the merchant with his/her virtual ‘punch’ card (executing on the mobile device 104), the employee may provide the user with the data 260, in the form of a QR code, after the user has purchased one or more qualifying products or services, and the user, using the virtual “punch” card, scans the QR code into the mobile device. The virtual “punch” card may then illustrate or indicate that the scan was successful (by, for example, displaying or illustrating an additional “punch,” corresponding to the most recent purchase, on the user's virtual card).” And, [0025] “the user may need to enter a code into an application executing on the device 104 wherein the code is only provided by the redemption entity at the time of the purchase or is otherwise only available within a physical location, such as displayed on a sign within a retail establishment. In one embodiment, the user may be required to provide their device to the merchant, or representative thereof, who enters the code themselves.” Examiner interprets the QR code (from [0043]) or the code that is manually entered in the user’s device by the user or merchant employee as the second authentication code associated with the vendor. Examiner notes that each time a user makes a purchase a code is provided by a vendor to verify the loyalty.);
based on verifying the first indication and the second indication, modifying the first indication and the second indication to designate the first indication and the second indication as fulfilled ([0043] “the user may provide the employee of the merchant with his/her virtual ‘punch’ card (executing on the mobile device 104), the employee may provide the user with the data 260, in the form of a QR code, after the user has purchased one or more qualifying products or services, and the user, using the virtual “punch” card, scans the QR code into the mobile device. The virtual “punch” card may then illustrate or indicate that the scan was successful (by, for example, displaying or illustrating an additional “punch,” corresponding to the most recent purchase, on the user's virtual card).” And, [0051] “The virtual ‘punch’ card may indicate or illustrate the one or more offer generation criteria and/or the user's progress towards fully satisfying the one or more offer generation criteria. If, for example, the one or more offer generation criteria specify that the user purchase 5 cups of small coffee at any Dunkin Donut's location, the virtual “punch” card may illustrate or depict the criterion and provide an indication of the user's progress with respect to that criterion. In other words, the virtual “punch” card may provide an indication of the offer generation criteria and depict or illustrate how many cups of coffee the user has purchased, and, thus, how many more cups of coffee the user needs to purchase to fully satisfy that criterion.” Examiner interprets the depicted punch corresponding to the purchase and the indication of the user’s progress as modifying the an indication to designate the an indication as fulfilled. Examiner notes that if the user makes two separate purchases (e.g., two remaining loyalty coffee purchase), both indications will be verified, and both indications will be designated as fulfilled.).
providing an electronic icon for the offer associated with the vendor based on modifying the first indication and the second indication ([0051] “for example, the one or more offer generation criteria specify that the user purchase 5 cups of small coffee at any Dunkin Donut's location, the virtual “punch” card may illustrate or depict the criterion and provide an indication of the user's progress with respect to that criterion . . . If the user has previously purchased the 5 cups of coffee specified by the criterion, the virtual “punch” card may indicate that the user has fully satisfied or completed the one or more offer generation criteria, and is thus eligible to receive the associated one or more offers.” Examiner interprets the virtual “punch” card indicating that the user has satisfied all 5 cups of the offer criteria as modifying the first and second remaining loyalties (e.g., the last two coffee cup purchases). And, [0011] “Once the offer server determines that the purchase represented by the data has caused the user to fully satisfy the one or more offer generation criteria for that user and the offer server provides the user with the one or more offers for financial incentives.” And, [0023] “displaying the redemption indicia on the display of their device . . . so that the merchant, or representative thereof, is able to perceive it, e.g., view, read, scan, receive.” And, [0025] “evaluate the satisfaction of the conditions and determine if they are satisfied in order to enable the redemption indicia to be revealed.” And, [0028] “The redemption indicia may be unique to the user and may include . . . an image.” Examiner interprets the redemption indicia displayed in response to the user completing the offer criteria (i.e., fulfilling the remaining loyalties) as providing the electronic icon for the offer.).
Barbeau teaches providing a first indication and second indication of loyalties (e.g., [0051] offer generation criteria) and teaches verifying the first and second indications based on an authentication code ([0043]) but not does explicitly teach the following feature taught by Bogan:
receiving, through the application [disclosed in Barbeau] a selection of a second indication of the indications of the loyalties to complete the second remaining loyalty to achieve the offer ([0037] “task identifier may include text or graphics representing the task and presented on a webpage.” And, [0061] “the webpage may itself identify other tasks that the recipient may perform.” And, [0053] “the user may provide input identifying which task was completed.” And, [0067] “task-completion input is received from a user . . . The task-completion input may include selection of options presented on a website. In one instance, a user can log into a website and then select an option.” And, [0068] “The task-completion input may indicate which task was completed.” And, [0003] “Reward criteria may be defined, e.g., as a number of completed tasks, a specific set of completed tasks, etc. Task-completion data in the profile may be compared to reward criteria. If it is determined that the criteria has been met, reward distribution may be initiated.” And, [0053] “the reward criteria is completion of a set of specific tasks. Each task may be associated with a unique code, or the user may provide input identifying which task was completed.” Examiner interprets the tasks as indications of loyalties and completing a specific set of tasks to receive a reward as completing a loyalty(s) to achieve the offer. Examiner interprets receiving a selection of the task-completion option (for a second task completed after the first task) as receiving a selection of the second remaining loyalty. Additionally, Examiner notes that paragraph [0089] recites “elements might be implemented in hardware, software (including portable software, such as applets, etc.).” Examiner notes that Barbeau teaches the virtual punch card implemented in a mobile application. Bogan also teaches that the invention might be implemented using an applet. Regardless, Bogan is only relied up on to teach receiving a selection of the first indication recited in the mobile application in Barbeau.).
Barbeau discloses multiple loyalties to complete and verifying a loyalty with a code (see paragraph [0043] and [0025]) but does not explicitly teach the following feature taught by Bogan:
wherein the second indication to complete the second remaining loyalty is verifiable based on a second authentication code associated with the vendor ([0053] “Reward distributor may compare task-completion data to the reward criteria . . . It is estimated that the task was completed upon entry of a code (e.g., a unique or non-unique code), and the criteria would then be met . . . the reward criteria is completion of five tasks . . . compare a number of completed tasks in the recipient's account to the threshold to determine if the criteria was met . . . the reward criteria is completion of a set of specific tasks. Each task may be associated with a unique code . . . Entry of these inputs may result in an estimate that a specific task was completed, and a recipient's account may be updated.” Examiner notes that Barbeau discloses multiple loyalties and verifying the loyalties with a code but does not explicitly a first and second indication verifiable by first and second authentication codes respectively. Examiner relies on Bogan to teach that a unique code can be to verify each task).
Barbeau discloses multiple loyalties to complete and verifying a loyalty with a code (see paragraph [0043] and [0025]) but does not explicitly teach the following feature taught by Bogan:
wherein the first remaining loyalty is to be a fulfilled loyalty based on the first authentication code and wherein the second remaining loyalty is to be a fulfilled loyalty based on the second authentication code ([0053] “Reward distributor may compare task-completion data to the reward criteria . . . It is estimated that the task was completed upon entry of a code (e.g., a unique or non-unique code), and the criteria would then be met . . . the reward criteria is completion of five tasks . . . compare a number of completed tasks in the recipient's account to the threshold to determine if the criteria was met . . . the reward criteria is completion of a set of specific tasks. Each task may be associated with a unique code . . . Entry of these inputs may result in an estimate that a specific task was completed, and a recipient's account may be updated.” Examiner notes that Barbeau discloses multiple loyalties and verifying the loyalties with a code but does not explicitly a first and second indication verifiable by first and second authentication codes respectively. Examiner relies on Bogan to teach that a unique code can be to verify each task).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's claimed invention to modify Barbeau to include receiving, through the application [disclosed in Barbeau] a selection of a second indication of the indications of the loyalties to complete the second remaining loyalty to achieve the offer; wherein the second indication to complete the second remaining loyalty is verifiable based on a second authentication code associated with the vendor; and wherein the first remaining loyalty is to be a fulfilled loyalty based on the first authentication code and wherein the second remaining loyalty is to be a fulfilled loyalty based on the second authentication code as taught by Bogan in order to “be able to confirm (e.g., to a reward-distributing company via an online communication) that the recipient performed the task” (Bogan [0036]) and so that “t[]he confirmation may be sent, for example, online using a webpage” (Bogan [0036]) as well as “allow recipients to log in using accounts” which “allow[s] tracking of multiple task completions” (Bogan [0061]) resulting in increased user convenience in reporting and tracking loyalty redemptions.
Claim 19
As per claim 19, Barbeau further teaches:
wherein the electronic icon is provided for display via the application based on location data provided by the user device ([0024] “application may be programmed to . . . to fully display the redemption indicia in a redeemable form . . . for devices featuring GPS capability, the user may simply need to physically bring the device to, or remove the device, from a specific geographic location or region upon which the redemption indicia is automatically revealed. This may be set as a condition of the offer by an offeror which only wants the offer to be valid for one visit to the location, such as a particular retail venue, whether or not the user redeems the offer.” And, [0025] “the condition may include the geographic coordinates of one or more retail locations of the merchant such that the user may only reveal the redemption indicia when their device, and presumably the user themselves, are physically located within or substantially proximate to one of the specified retail locations.” Examiner notes that the redemption indicia (i.e., the electronic icon) is provided based on the geographic location of the user device.).
Barbeau does not explicitly teach but Bogan teaches:
a user device associated with user login credentials ([0020] “log onto a website and indicate that he completed the task . . . [i]f it is determined that the criteria has been met, a user may be able to: be informed of reward availability.” And, [0067] “task-completion input is received from a user . . . The task-completion input may include selection of options presented on a website. In one instance, a user can log into a website and then select an option.” And, [0061] “the webpage may be configured to allow recipients to log in using accounts.” And, [0062] “log-in information (e.g., a log-in name and a password).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's claimed invention to modify the combination of Barbeau and Bogan to include a user device associated with user login credentials as taught by Bogan in order to “be able to confirm (e.g., to a reward-distributing company via an online communication) that the recipient performed the task” (Bogan [0036]) and so that “t[]he confirmation may be sent, for example, online using a webpage” (Bogan [0036]) as well as “allow recipients to log in using accounts” which “allow[s] tracking of multiple task completions” (Bogan [0061]) resulting in increased user convenience in reporting and tracking loyalty redemptions.
Claim 27
As per claim 27, Barbeau further teaches:
wherein the first authentication code indicates a first transaction by a user associated with the user device and the second authentication code indicates a second transaction by the user associated with the user device ([0043] “the user may provide the employee of the merchant with his/her virtual ‘punch’ card (executing on the mobile device 104), the employee may provide the user with the data 260, in the form of a QR code, after the user has purchased one or more qualifying products or services, and the user, using the virtual “punch” card, scans the QR code into the mobile device. The virtual “punch” card may then illustrate or indicate that the scan was successful (by, for example, displaying or illustrating an additional “punch,” corresponding to the most recent purchase, on the user's virtual card).” And, [0025] “the user may need to enter a code into an application executing on the device 104 wherein the code is only provided by the redemption entity at the time of the purchase or is otherwise only available within a physical location, such as displayed on a sign within a retail establishment. In one embodiment, the user may be required to provide their device to the merchant, or representative thereof, who enters the code themselves.” Examiner interprets the QR code (from [0043]) or the code that is manually entered in the user’s device by the user or merchant employee as an authentication code associated with the vendor. Examiner notes that each time a user makes a purchase (e.g., for first and second transactions with a vendor) a code is provided by a vendor to verify the loyalty.).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20120296716 (“Barbeau”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20120208641 (“Bogan”) as applied to claim 19 above, and in further view of and US Patent Application Publication Number 20110179113 (“Thomas”) and US Patent Application Publication Number 20120232976 (“Calman”)
Claim 20
As per claim 20, Barbeau further teaches:
wherein the indications of loyalties are provided via the application on an electronic loyalty card ([0025] “an application executing on the device.” And, [0051] “The virtual ‘punch’ card may indicate or illustrate the one or more offer generation criteria and/or the user's progress towards fully satisfying the one or more offer generation criteria. If, for example, the one or more offer generation criteria specify that the user purchase 5 cups of small coffee at any Dunkin Donut's location, the virtual “punch” card may illustrate or depict the criterion and provide an indication of the user's progress with respect to that criterion. In other words, the virtual “punch” card may provide an indication of the offer generation criteria and depict or illustrate how many cups of coffee the user has purchased, and, thus, how many more cups of coffee the user needs to purchase to fully satisfy that criterion.” Examiner interprets the virtual punch card as an electronic loyalty card displaying indications of loyalties and provided via an application.).
Barbeau teaches an electronic loyalty card ([0051] “the virtual punch card”) but does not explicitly teach the following feature taught by Thomas:
an electronic loyalty card having a front face and a rear face, and wherein the link is provided on the rear face of the electronic loyalty card ([0036] “display 224-E shows the front of a virtual loyalty card . . . whereas display 224-F shows the back of the same virtual loyalty card.” And, [0038] “the back of the virtual loyalty card, display 224-F also includes a reproduction of the loyalty card number, the expiry date and a selectable area of touchscreen entitled “Visit our web site” that can be selected to cause display to shows a web-site hosted on the issuer server.” Examiner interprets the selectable area of the touchscreen on the back face of the loyalty card as the link provided on the rear face of the electronic loyalty card.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's claimed invention to modify the combination of Barbeau and Bogan to include an electronic loyalty card having a front face and a rear face, and wherein the link is provided on the rear face of the electronic loyalty card as taught by Thomas so that “the front and back of the virtual loyalty card is substantially an accurate facsimile of an actual loyalty card that is typically carried in a physical wallet” (Thomas [0036]) making the virtual loyalty card intuitive and easy to use for the customer.
Barbeau does not explicitly teach but Calman teaches:
wherein the electronic icon comprises a link to details about the offer ([0086] “virtual image award cup icon indicator 740. The user can select the indicator 740 by clicking on the icon in order to view more information about the reward offer as shown in FIG. 8.” And, [0052] “the indicator may provide the user with an internet hyperlink to further information on the object.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's claimed invention to modify the combination of Barbeau, Bogan, and Thomas to include wherein the electronic icon comprises a link to details about the offer as taught by Calman “in order to view more information about the reward offer” (Calman [0086]) and “quickly search and/or retrieve information from the other program without requiring additional authentication steps” (Calman [0047]) resulting in increased user convenience.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20120296716 (“Barbeau”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20120208641 (“Bogan”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20110179113 (“Thomas”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20120232976 (“Calman”) as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20110071895 (“Masri”).
Claim 24
As per claim 24, Barbeau does not explicitly teach but Masri teaches:
wherein the indications of loyalties are provided based on receiving a name of the vendor, a category associated with the vendor, and a location associated with the vendor ([0091] “allows a user to download new promotions from vendors via the host device based on specified criteria (e.g., type, location, price, vendor, etc.)” and “promotions . . . in a specific category (e.g., type, location, price, etc.).” And, [0093] “the user can select to download promotions based on a location (e.g., a distance from a user's current location, a zip code, a city, etc.), an identifier associated with a business (e.g., a business ID number, a business name, etc.), a type of vendor.” Examiner interprets a type of vendor or category as a category associated with the vendor. See also, [0027] “can search for and find vendors, vendors with rewards programs and/or coupons associated with such vendors based on location (e.g., within 10 miles), type of vendor (e.g., Thai restaurants, department stores).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's claimed invention to modify the combination of Barbeau, Bogan, Thomas, and Calman to include wherein the indications of loyalties are provided based on receiving a name of the vendor, a category associated with the vendor, and a location associated with the vendor as taught by Masri in order to “allows[]a user to sign up for and/or subscribe to various rewards programs in which they are interested and/or search for promotions from vendors” (Masri [0027]) and to “to retrieve the vendors with loyalty programs within a proximity to that location” (Masri [0036]) resulting in increased convenience to the user and increased likelihood to participate in the loyalty programs of interest.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20120296716 (“Barbeau”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20120208641 (“Bogan”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20110179113 (“Thomas”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20120232976 (“Calman”) as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20120010930 (“Langdon”).
Claim 25
As per claim 25, Barbeau tracking the users progress towards a goal including tracking visits ([0010] and [0044]) but does not explicitly teach the following feature taught by Langdon:
wherein verifying the first remaining loyalty is based on a number of visits at the vendor, the number of visits at the vendor being stored at a vendor offer manager that manages vendor offers from a plurality of different vendors ([0101] “The goal may be a goal that a user must accomplish in order to receive an award. The goal may require a certain number of visits to the merchant.” And, [0066] “Rewards card database may store in indication of one or more rewards the user is pursuing. The database may serve as a virtual or electronic punch card, and may track how many times a user has visited a merchant.” And, [0054] “User progress database may allow the program server to track a user's progress towards earning a reward from a merchant.” And, [0304] “determining that the goal has been reached.” And, [0080] “database may store information about merchants participating in a loyalty/rewards program.” Examiner interprets determining that a goal has been reached where the goal is a certain number of visits to a vendor as verifying the first remaining loyalty based on a number of visits at the vendor. Examiner interprets the rewards card database which tracks how many times a user has visited the merchant as a vendor offer manager.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's claimed invention to modify the combination of Barbeau, Bogan, Thomas, and Calman to include wherein modifying the first indication includes stamping the first indication to designate the first indication as fulfilled as taught by Langdon in order to “allow the program server to track a user's progress towards earning a reward from a merchant” (Langdon [0054) and “allow a user to more readily track his progress towards obtaining a reward (e.g., by displaying an indication of progress to the user) (Langdon [0035) which can “help ensure the integrity of the loyalty/rewards program, and may help to ensure that merchants truly are gaining valuable business in exchange for the rewards they are giving away” (Langdon [0115]).
Claim 26
As per claim 26, Barbeau further teaches:
wherein verifying the first remaining loyalty is based on a number of purchases with the vendor stored at the vendor offer manager ([0036] “The offer generation criterion may define or specify a quantity of a product or service (e.g., 10 small cups of coffee), a quantity of products or services (e.g., 10 small cups of coffee and/or 5 hash browns), a number of transactions (e.g., 5 purchases).” And, [0051] “for example, the one or more offer generation criteria specify that the user purchase 5 cups of small coffee at any Dunkin Donut's location, the virtual “punch” card may illustrate or depict the criterion and provide an indication of the user's progress with respect to that criterion . . . If the user has previously purchased the 5 cups of coffee specified by the criterion, the virtual “punch” card may indicate that the user has fully satisfied or completed the one or more offer generation criteria, and is thus eligible to receive the associated one or more offers.”).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-13, filed 9/12/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claims
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-12, 14, 17, and 19-28 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues:
Claim 1 is not directed to a fundamental economic practice, method of organizing human activity, or mental process. Instead, it recites specific technical features that facilitate loyalty management on a user device via verifiable, per-step interaction, including: (1) displaying an electronic loyalty card interface with a front and rear face; (2) receiving a user selection of a specific loyalty indication; (3) verifying that indication using a first authentication code from the vendor; ( 4) updating that indication to a fulfilled state based on that verification; and (5) repeating that process for other loyalty steps, each verified using a separate authentication code. This fine-grained, code-gated loyalty fulfillment materially improves how loyalty systems enforce and manage multi-step offers on distributed mobile platforms. It is not merely an automation of mental steps or economic practices-it is a specific improvement to the operation of the loyalty interface itself (remarks page 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims describe the process of tracking loyalties (e.g., visits and purchases) of consumers for a particular vendor and rewarding consumers who complete loyalties with an offer. This describes a marketing or sales activity similar to punching holes in a loyalty punch card and providing an offer when all holes are punched. Therefore the claim recites an abstract idea. Further, the claimed invention provides a generic interface that includes a visual depiction of the front and back of an electronic loyalty card. The interface also includes generic links to information about the loyalty card and specifics about an offer. Examiner notes that specifying that the interface displays a front and rear face of an electronic loyalty card merely describes the placement of displayed content (displaying virtual card faces) on a generic user interface as opposed to the technological configuration/functionality of the interface. Moreover, simply displaying generic links to information on the interface merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or uses the computer a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., providing a generic link to information about an offer). Finally, examiner notes that verifying loyalty steps using unique identification codes merely further narrows the abstract idea.
Second, Applicant argues that:
the system requires users to engage with a visual loyalty interface and select specific loyalty actions, each of which must be verified via a unique authentication code associated with the vendor. The system dynamically updates the loyalty state for each step based on successful verification of the corresponding code and only issues the offer upon completion of all verified steps. This stepwise progression and state change is tracked in-app and reflected in a user-facing visual interface. These mechanisms are directly analogous to the rule-based animation system in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which was found eligible because the rule-based structure imposed meaningful limits on how and when outcomes were generated. Similarly, the user-driven state transitions here are not abstract-they're tied to verifiable, step-specific vendor input and reflected in app-specific state logic. This differs fundamentally from generic coupon systems or simple "checklist" apps.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims merely recite a generic user interface through which users may select indications and designate indications as fulfilled. At this level of generality this amounts to simply taking the idea of a “punch card” and “applying it” on a generic computing device. Moreover, verifying a loyalty based on authentication codes is part of the abstract idea and is a business practice that can be performed manually by a human. Simply automating the verification process at the level of generality claimed does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to a technological solution to a technological problem. The fact that unique identification codes are associated with each loyalty action does not change the analysis and still merely amounts to verifying the actions are completed using codes. At most the claims recite automating a process that can be performed manually by a human.
Third, Applicant argues:
Even if the claim were found to be "directed to" an abstract idea, it contains an inventive concept that transforms it into patent-eligible subject matter. Specifically, the combination of features-(1) displaying a two-faced loyalty card interface; (2) receiving and processing a user selection for a specific loyalty indication; (3) validating that indication using a first authentication code from the vendor; ( 4) using a different code for each loyalty step; and (5) dynamically updating visual fulfillment status for each validated loyalty indication-are nongeneric and non-routine (remarks page 12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. the claimed invention provides a generic interface that includes a visual depiction of the front and back of an electronic loyalty card. The interface also includes generic links to information about the loyalty card and specifics about an offer. Examiner notes that specifying that the interface displays a front and rear face of an electronic loyalty card merely describes the placement of displayed content (displaying virtual card faces) on a generic user interface as opposed to the technological configuration/functionality of the interface. Moreover, simply displaying generic links to information on the interface merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or uses the computer a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., providing a generic link to information about an offer). Additionally, examiner notes that verifying loyalty steps using unique identification codes merely further narrows the abstract idea. Finally, examiner notes that modifying the indications is recited at a high level of generality and simply amounts to displaying information on a generic user interface which is a non-generic and non-routine that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Finally, Applicant argues:
Claim 1 solves a specific technical problem in digital loyalty program implementation-namely, how to enforce verified, step-specific progression toward an offer in a mobile context-through: (1) user-driven selection ofindividual loyalty actions; (2) authentication using loyalty-step-specific vendor codes; and (3) real-time UI updates reflecting per-step completion. These features, particularly the requirement of distinct codes for each step, materially improve system integrity and redemption control, and are supported by the Specification at least at ,-i,i [0027], [0031], [0034]-[0037] (remarks page 13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and replies that at the level of generality claimed, verifying loyalty based on authentication codes is part of the abstract idea and is a business practice that can be performed manually by a human. Simply automating the verification process at the level of generality claimed does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to a technological solution to a technological problem. The fact that unique identification codes are associated with each loyalty actions does not change the analysis and still merely amounts to verifying the actions are completed using codes. At most the claims recite automating a process that can be performed manually by a human.
35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 1-3, 6, 12, 21-23, and 28
Examiner notes that the rejections of claims 1-3, 6, 12, 21-23, and 28 were previously withdrawn and therefore any arguments related to these claims are moot.
Claims 9-11, 14, 17, 19-20, 24-25, and 27
Applicant argues that
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. The cited combination of references, including Barbeau, Bogan, Thomas, and Calman, fails to teach or suggest the claimed feature of distinct, step-specific verification of loyalty indications using separate authentication codes per loyalty step, as required by amended claim 1. The Examiner relies on Calman to allegedly disclose or suggest the use of “multiple authentication codes" in support of the above limitation. However, this reliance is misplaced for at least the following reasons . . .
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the Calman has not been relied upon to disclose or suggest the use of multiple authentication codes. Calman is relied upon solely to teach providing a link to more about information about a specific offer. Nowhere in the previous non-final or this office action is any reference explicitly described as reciting the language “multiple authentication codes.” Therefore is it not clear what reference Applicant is referring to. However, Bogan is described as disclosing the tracking of multiple tasks completions and has been relied upon to teach the amended claim limitations. Therefore, it appears Applicant may have intended to refer to alleged deficiencies in Bogan, not Calman. Examiner will respond to the arguments as though they are directed to Bogan where possible.
First, Applicant argues that:
While Calman discusses the general use of secure authentication codes, there is no disclosure or suggestion in Calman of any user interface or system logic that enables a user to select an individual loyalty indication, trigger verification via a vendor-specific code tied to that step, and update a corresponding loyalty status.
In contrast, claim 1 recites a granular loyalty tracking system, in which each loyalty "indication" (e.g., a punch, stamp, or marker on a loyalty card) is tied to its own unique authentication code. This model allows a user to progress through a sequence of loyalty actions, each of which is separately verified via a different vendor-associated code. The system must allow real-time updates to the visual state of each indication based on the result of that code-specific validation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and replies that the combination of Barbeau and Bogan teach the claimed limitations. Specifically, the “virtual punch” card in Barbeau displays multiple loyalty indications in the form of punches (see Barbeau [0042]) and using a code to verify the individual loyalty., Barbeau does not explicitly teach unique authentication codes for each loyalty, but this feature is taught by Bogan ([0053] “Each task may be associated with a unique code . . . Entry of these inputs may result in an estimate that a specific task was completed, and a recipient's account may be updated.” Therefore, Examiner takes the position that the combination of Barbeau and Bogan teaches claim limitations.
Second, Applicant argues that “Calman is directed to background authentication and cryptographic techniques for secure transmission or multi-party access. It does not implement or contemplate transaction-specific progression through a loyalty card model . . . Further, the Examiner fails to provide a reasoned explanation-under KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)-as to why a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine Calman 's background cryptographic scheme with the consumer-facing loyalty interaction systems of Barbeau, Bogan, or Thomas” (remarks page 16).
Examiner respectfully replies that neither Calman nor any of the cited references appear to be directed towards background authentication or cryptographic techniques for secure transmission or multi-party access. Therefore Examiner is unable to respond to this argument.
Third, Applicant argues that:
Even Barbeau, which forms the foundation of the Examiner's rejection, reinforces Applicant's distinction. Barbeau describes only a single "authentication code" system per vendor or campaign, which contradicts the current claim's requirement of separate codes per loyalty indication. This shortcoming is exactly why the Examiner attempts to supplement Barbeau with Calman-yet Calman cannot close this gap for the reasons discussed above (remarks page 17).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Calman is not relied upon to “close this gap.” To the extent that Applicant intended to refer to Bogan, Examiner takes the position that Bogan’s teaching associating each task with a unique code and updating the recipients account when the tasks are completed does not contradict Barbeau. Rather, combining the references allows for the secure tracking of multiple loyalty/task completions in Barbeau.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication Number 20120323663 (“Leach”) discloses tracking offers in progress (e.g., three purchases made), and the remaining actions to be taken by a consumer to complete an offer
US Patent Publication Number 20020147663 (“Walker”) discloses a customer selecting at least two tasks to complete from tasks presented in an offer
US Patent Publication Number 20130159197 (“Singh”) discloses graying out completed tasks on a user interface
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622