Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
This non-final office action is in response to the RCE communication filed on 5/7/2026. 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: “plurality of loyalty portions” should be replaced with “the plurality of loyalty portions” in line 8. 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;
in response to receiving the selection of the first indication, requesting entry of a first authentication code associated with the vendor for the selected first indication;
verifying, using the first authentication code, that the selected first indication corresponds to a completed vendor transaction to complete the first loyalty, wherein the first indication is verifiable based on the first authentication code and a second indication to complete a first remaining loyalty is separately verifiable based on a second authentication code associated with the vendor;
based on verifying the selected first indication modifying the selected first indication to designate the selected first indication as fulfilled, wherein the first remaining loyalty is to be a fulfilled loyalty based on the second authentication code; and
providing an 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 using unique authentication codes 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 a plurality of portions indicating loyalties to obtain an offer associated with a vendor, plurality of loyalty portions including a first remaining loyalty portion and a second remaining loyalty portion;
receiving, a user selection of the first remaining loyalty portion to achieve the offer, the first remaining loyalty portion is a selected first remaining loyalty portion;
in response to receiving the user selection of the first remaining loyalty portion, requesting entry of a first authentication code associated with the vendor for the vendor for the selected first remaining loyalty portion;
verifying, using the first authentication code, that the selected first remaining loyalty portion corresponds to a completed vendor transaction, wherein the first remaining loyalty portion corresponds to completed vendor transaction;
wherein the selected first remaining loyalty portion is verifiable based on the first authentication code and the second remaining loyalty portion is separately verifiable based on a second authentication code associated with the vendor;
based on verifying the selected first remaining loyalty, modifying the selected first remaining loyalty portion to designate the selected first remaining loyalty portion as fulfilled wherein the first remaining loyalty is to be fulfilled based on the first authentication code; and
providing the offer associated with the vendor upon verification and fulfillment of each of the plurality of loyalty portions 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 using unique authentication codes 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;
[Receiving a user selection] via in interface;
visually altering the selected first remaining loyalty portion within the electronic loyalty card the first remaining loyalty as the fulfilled loyalty,
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).
Similarly with respect to [Receiving a user selection] via in interface; and visually altering the selected first remaining loyalty portion within the electronic loyalty card the first remaining loyalty as the fulfilled loyalty, these limitations are recited at high level of generality and only generally link 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]) to receive a user selection of display remaining loyalties. At this level of generality, these limitations merely “apply” the abstract idea on a generic device capable of displaying information.
Finally, 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
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;
in response to receiving the selection of the first indication, requesting entry of a first authentication code associated with the vendor for the selected first indication;
verifying, using the first authentication code, that the selected first indication corresponds to a completed vendor transaction to complete the first remaining loyalty;
receiving a selection of a second indication of the indications of the loyalties to complete the second remaining loyalty to achieve the offer;
in response to receiving the selection of the second indication, requesting entry of the second authentication code associated with the vendor for the selected second indication;
verifying, using the second authentication code, that the selected second indication corresponds to a completed vendor transaction to complete the second remaining loyalty, wherein the selected first indication is verifiable based on the first authentication code and the selected second indication is separately verifiable based on the second authentication code;
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.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-11 filed 5/7/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-12, 14, 17, and 19-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments, see pages 1-6, filed 5/7/2026 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:
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are not directed merely to a fundamental economic practice, method of organizing human activity, or mental process. Instead, the amended claims recite specific computer-implemented features that control how a digital loyalty card progresses through verified states. These features include: (1) providing an electronic loyalty card interface; (2) receiving a user selection of a specific loyalty indication or loyalty portion; (3) in response to that user selection, requesting entry of an authentication code associated with the vendor for the selected loyalty indication or portion; ( 4) verifying, using the authentication code, that the selected loyalty indication or portion corresponds to a completed vendor transaction; (5) separately verifying additional loyalty indications or portions using separate authentication codes; and (6) modifying the corresponding selected loyalty indication or portion based on the verification (remarks page 2).
This is not merely the automation of a punch card or generalized reward tracking. The amended claims impose a specific interaction rule: a user's selection of a particular loyalty portion triggers a corresponding authentication-code request for that selected portion, and the system verifies that the selected portion corresponds to a completed vendor transaction before updating loyalty state. This is a concrete computer-implemented control workflow for managing state transitions in a digital loyalty card environment (remarks pages 2-3).
This is akin to the claims in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where claims were found eligible because they were directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality. Here, the amended claims improve digital loyalty-card functionality by requiring step-specific authentication and state management, rather than merely displaying or tracking reward information (remarks page 3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rule the Applicant describes (i.e., a user selecting a loyalty, receiving a request for a code associated with the loyalty, authenticating each loyalty with a unique code, and updating the loyalty corresponding to a completed vendor transaction) describes the method of organizing human activities. The interface is recited at a high level of generality, merely reciting a generic interface to display loyalties, allow loyalty selection, request codes, verifying the codes and indicating the loyalty is verified. A human being could perform each of these steps using a paper loyalty card with stamps and asking the user to provide unique codes. Using a generic user interface to automate this process merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or utilizes a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner disagrees this is akin to Enfish. In Enfish, the claims recited a technological improvement to the way computers operate by using a self-referential table structure that allowed for faster search times, reduced memory requirements etc. In contrast, the present claim is merely a generic user interface that displays indications, allows users to select indicators, and allows users in input requested codes. There is no technological improvement to the way computers operate.
Second, Applicant argues:
These limitations integrate any alleged abstract idea into a concrete computer-implemented process. The claimed workflow does not simply say "track loyalty and provide a reward." Rather, the claims require a particular ordered interaction: user selection, authentication code request, vendor-transaction verification, separate per-step verification, and loyalty-state modification. This ordered sequence provides a practical technological implementation for preventing premature or unauthorized loyalty fulfillment and for maintaining accurate state transitions within an electronic loyalty card. These mechanisms are analogous to the rule-based processing found eligible in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As in McRO, the claims do not merely state a desired result (remarks pages 3-4).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims merely recite a generic user interface through which users may select indications, input requested codes, and designate indications as fulfilled. The verification process is recited a high level of generality simply using a code to verify that the indication corresponds to a completed transaction. The “loyalty-state modification” simply modifies the content of the interface as a high level of generality to indicate that the loyalty is 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:
The amended claims are also analogous to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), because they address a problem arising in computer-implemented interfaces-how to securely manage state-specific progression within an electronic loyalty card-using a particular interface-based and authentication-based solution. The claims are not directed to a generic business practice performed on a computer, but to a specific digital-card control architecture that coordinates user selection, vendor authentication, transaction verification, and state updating (remarks page 6).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not address a technological problem to securely manage state-specific progression because at the level of generality claims the claims simply verifying a loyalty transaction using a code. There is no underlying technological improvement beyond using a generic using interface to display loyalties, select loyalties, input codes, verify codes, and modify verified loyalties.
Third, Applicant argues:
Even if the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea, the amended claims recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claims into patent-eligible subject matter. The inventive concept is found in the ordered combination of limitations, including: (1) receiving a user selection of a specific loyalty indication or portion; (2) requesting entry of an authentication code in response to that selection; (3) tying that authentication code to the selected indication or portion; ( 4) verifying that the selected indication or portion corresponds to a completed vendor transaction; (5) separately verifying additional loyalty indications or portions using separate authentication codes; and (6) modifying the selected indication or portion based on the verification. Taken together, these limitations are not generic or routine. They define a specific state-control mechanism for electronic loyalty cards. The claims do not merely use authentication codes in the abstract. They require that authentication be invoked in response to a user's selection of a specific loyalty portion and that the authentication be used to verify a completed vendor transaction corresponding to that selected portion. This ordered combination improves the integrity of the electronic loyalty-card system by preventing an unverified or incorrect loyalty portion from being marked complete and by requiring each loyalty portion to be separately verified before offer fulfillment (remarks page 5).
The Examiner's characterization of the claims as a generic punch card implemented on a computer overlooks the amended claim language. A physical punch card does not include an application-based interface that receives a selection of a particular loyalty portion, requests an authentication code for that selected portion, verifies a corresponding completed vendor transaction, separately verifies another portion using another authentication code, and updates the selected digital state based on the verification. The amended claims recite a specific computer-implemented framework for controlling state transitions in a digital loyalty card (remarks page 5).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The ordered combination the Applicant describes (i.e., a user selecting a loyalty, authenticating the loyalty with a code, and updating the loyalty corresponding to a completed vendor transaction) describes the method of organizing human activities. The interface is recited at a high level of generality, merely reciting a generic interface to display loyalties, allow loyalty selection, request codes, verifying the codes and indicating the loyalty is verified. A human being could perform each of these steps with using a paper loyalty card with stamps and asking the user to provide unique codes. Using a generic user interface to automate this process merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or utilizes a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply automating the verification process at the level of generality claimed does not amount to an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, Examiner notes that with respect to the argument that the “ordered combination improves the integrity of the electronic loyalty-card system by preventing an unverified or incorrect loyalty portion from being marked complete and by requiring each loyalty portion to be separately verified before offer fulfillment”, there simply are not sufficient technical details recited for this argument to be persuasive. There is no technical explanation as to how the codes are verified. At this level of generality, verifying the codes individually by inputting the codes into a device is not conceptually different than manually verifying the individual codes and there is no technological verification mechanism that can be identified as the improvement.
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
US Patent Application Publication Number 20120296716 (“Barbeau”) discloses a virtual punch card illustrating a user’s progress towards fully satisfying offer generation criteria
US Patent Application Publication Number 20120208641 (“Bogan”) discloses marking tasks are complete via entry of unique codes and providing rewards based on tasks completions
US Patent Application Publication Number 20110179113 (“Thomas”) discloses an virtual loyalty card having a front and back face including a link to an issuer’s website
US Patent Application Publication Number 20120232976 (“Calman”) discloses a virtual image award cup icon indicator where a user can click on an icon in order to view more information about a reward offer and where the indicator may provide a hyperlink to additional information
However, the prior art fails to teach each and every limitation as claimed, and would involve hindsight reasoning to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims are considered allowable over the prior art.
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 on (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
Prosecution Insights