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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to communications received 7/9/2024, Applicant, on 10/9/2024, amended claims 2-12, 15-16 and 18-19. Claim 1 remains canceled. Claims 2-19 remain pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has indicated in the Application Data Sheet that the present application claims the benefit of Provisional Application 63/222,800 filed 16 July 2021.
Response to Amendment
With respect to Applicant’s amendments to claim 18, the 112(f) rejection is hereby removed.
With respect to Applicant’s amendments, the 101 rejection is hereby removed.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are considered; however, the 102 and 103 rejections remain and are updated below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 101 arguments, Applicant argues that the “creation of new types of data structures based on the merging of two data structures to create a new merged multiline data structure that limited to a determined number of lines and levels,” as recited in the amended claims, recites a transformation that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application (See Remarks at pgs. 8-9). Examiner agrees. Examiner notes that the amended claim reciting a creation of newly formed data structure types is necessarily rooted in technology and effects a transformation of a technical structure, which practically applies the judicial exception. Accordingly, the 101 rejection is hereby removed.
With respect to the 102 and 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the cited reference, Cooper et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2014/0074625, hereinafter referred to as Cooper) fails to disclose the newly added amendment, “determining a maximum number of lines and levels available to members of the merged multiline data structure based on one or more threshold criteria met by the members” (See Remarks at pg. 10). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Cooper’s disclosure discloses criteria that designate the maximum number of lines and levels available to be met by individuals in a merged data structure (See Cooper ¶0084-0087). This merged data structure can be represented by a structure of fixed width and depth, which is considered to be a matrix structure (See Cooper, ¶0089). It is clear Cooper’s disclosure is sufficient to teach or disclose the argued amended language above. See the updated below 102 rejection for further clarification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-10, 12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooper et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2014/0074625, hereinafter referred to as Cooper).
As per Claim 2, Cooper discloses a method for merging different user structures into a multiline user structure, the method comprising:
Storing in memory at least a first data structure storing member data regarding a first set of lines corresponding to a first set of existing relationships, and a second data structure storing member data regarding a second set of lines corresponding to a second set of existing relationships (Cooper: See ¶0077-0078: where the multi-line tree structure shows individuals and their parent/child relationship with individuals downline on the multi-level structure. See ¶0091 for storage of multi-level marketing tree representation. Examiner notes that parent/child relationships represent first and second sets of relationships.);
Receiving member data for at least one member associated with the member data in the first data structure or the second user structure, the received member data regarding at least a position of the at least one member within the respective data structure and corresponding to a set of relationships of associated with the at least one member (Cooper: ¶0049 An individual’s data is received to construct a virtual tree of the individual’s income positions and the corresponding connections by their genealogical relationships.);
merging the first data structure and the second data structure to create a new merged multiline data structure that includes member data regarding the at least one member, wherein the set of relationships of the at least one member is integrated into and maintained within the merged multiline data structure (Cooper: Fig. 7 and ¶0078: The multi-line structure accommodates the merging of compensation plans by adopting a new multi-line structure. The multi-line tree structure allows for generations of commissions from individuals placed in a downline regardless of the levels down (rows) [relationships].);
storing the merged multiline data structure in memory, wherein the merged multiline data structure is updatable to add member data regarding one or more additional lines corresponding to new relationships associated with the at least one member (Cooper: Fig. 7 and ¶0078-0079: The merged user structure is mapped/saved with the updated new multi-line plan respective of a members’ relationships.); and
determining a maximum number of lines and levels available to members of the merged multiline data structure based on one or more threshold criteria met by the members (Cooper: See ¶0034-0035 where “optimization” refers to as a maximum number of lines of commission for an individual. See ¶0084-0086 where a computer system is configured to optimize commissions in a multiline data structure by determining the criteria of all of the available lines and levels for an individual in the structure. See ¶0087 for an example where the maximum number of lines or commissions is $2,000 per line, and commissions are 15% of points and the maximum number of points that should be applied so long as there are sufficient points to bring lines up to the maximum commission for that line. This may qualify an individual for additional bonuses for meeting certain maximums.); and
converting the merged multiline data structure to create a new matrix data structure based on the determined maximum number of lines and levels (Cooper: ¶0089: the merged bounded systems may be practiced where the structure has a predetermined maximum width or depth. See ¶0008 where it is noted that matrix plans are structures with finite width and a finite depth.).
Claims 18 and 19 recite the limitations already addressed by the rejection of Claim 1; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 3, Cooper discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining the maximum number of lines for the matrix data structure includes determining a width of the matrix data structure and wherein determining the maximum number of levels for the matrix data structure includes determining a depth of the matrix data structure (Cooper: See ¶0084-0086 where a computer system is configured to optimize commissions in a multiline data structure by determining the criteria of all of the available lines and levels for an individual in the structure. See ¶0087 for an example where the maximum number of lines or commissions is $2,000 per line, and commissions are 15% of points and the maximum number of points that should be applied so long as there are sufficient points to bring lines up to the maximum commission for that line. This may qualify an individual for additional bonuses for meeting certain maximums. See ¶0089 where the method may consider a determined maximum width or depth when converting the multi-level marketing structure.).
As per Claim 4, Cooper discloses the method of claim 3, wherein determining the width of the matrix data structure includes identifying a member in the merged multiline data structure with a highest number of lines, wherein the width is set based on the highest number of lines (Cooper: ¶0089: The method may consider a determined maximum width or depth when converting the multi-level marketing system to an unbounded system. See ¶0099 where the individual has the highest number of lines for generating commission.).
As per Claim 5, Cooper discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising adding additional lines corresponding to new relationships with the at least one member based on the determined width of the matrix data structure (Cooper: ¶0078: The multi-line structure accommodates the merging of compensation plans by adopting additional lines in a multi-line structure. The multi-line tree structure allows for generations of commissions from individuals placed in a downline regardless of the levels down (rows) [relationships]. ¶0089: The method may consider a determined maximum width or depth when converting the relationships in a multi-level marketing system to an unbounded system.).
As per Claim 6, Cooper discloses the method of claim 3, wherein determining the depth of the matrix data structure includes identifying a data in the merged multiline data structure with a highest level of influence, wherein the depth is set based on the highest level of influence (Cooper: ¶0064-0070: The depth of the descending order of the matrix structure is determined by ordering users by their levels. It is identified which user had the highest commission to determine where the maximum commission is guaranteed.).
As per Claim 7, Cooper discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising determining a rate of distribution of the at least one member in the multiline data structure based on a comparison between a cumulative historical distribution of the at least one member within the first or second data structure and a cumulative expected distribution of the at least one member within the merged multiline data structure (Cooper: See ¶0078-0079 where the previous compensation rates of the cumulative previous plans are compared to determine the new multi-line plan’s compensation.).
As per Claim 8, Cooper discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the cumulative expected distribution is determined based on the position of the at least one member within the first or second data structure (Cooper: See ¶0078-0079 where the previous compensation rates of the cumulative previous plans are compared to determine the new multi-line plan’s compensation. The distribution is determined based on the positions, see Fig. 7.).
As per Claim 9, Cooper discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising determining distribution rules for one or more uplines of the at least one member of the multiline data structure based on a level of influence of the at least one member (Cooper: ¶0011-0012: The distribution plan enables the member with the influence of a primary distributor to continue to develop the distribution tree in width and/or depth and to receive commissions for downlines. See Fig. 7 and 0078 where rules map the multi-line structure to the distributor.).
As per Claim 10, Cooper discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising determining distribution rules for one or more uplines of the at least one member of the multiline data structure based on a type of the one or more uplines (Cooper: ¶0011-0012: The distribution plan enables the member with a primary distributor type to continue to develop the distribution tree in width and/or depth and to receive commissions for downlines. See Fig. 7 and 0078 where rules map the multi-line structure to the distributor.).
As per Claim 12, Cooper discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising adding the additional lines to the merged multiline data structure based on the threshold criteria being met by weighting one or more of the relationships between the at least one member and one or more members that are downline from the at least one member within the merged multiline data structure (Cooper: ¶0078: The multi-line structure accommodates the merging of compensation plans by adopting additional lines in a multi-line structure. The multi-line tree structure allows for generations of commissions from individuals placed in a downline regardless of the levels down (rows) [relationships]. ¶0089: The method may consider a determined maximum width or depth threshold when converting the relationships in a multi-level marketing system to an unbounded system.).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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.
Claim(s) 11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2014/0074625, hereinafter referred to as Cooper) in view of Collomby (United States Patent Application Publication, 2018/0040014).
As per Claim 11, Cooper discloses the method of claim 6.
Cooper does not explicitly disclose; however, Collomby discloses further comprising altering distribution rules for one or more uplines of the at least one member of the multiline data structure based on the determined depth of the matrix data structure (Collomby: ¶0046-0047: See ¶0046 for the determined depth. Policies related to rate/commission distribution may be updated to reflect changes and may be respective to one member. For example, the collection rate of type X points may be updated to be twice the normal rate from members directly related to a particular member in the structure.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to combine Cooper with Collomby’s determination of depth in a multi-level structure are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features for determining a hierarchical marketing environment across several business entities, and because incorporating Collomby’s determination of depth in a multi-level structure in Cooper would have served Cooper’s pursuit of enabling
a distributor to build a distribution tree of essentially any width or depth (See Cooper, ¶0010); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 13, Cooper discloses the method of claim 12.
Cooper does not explicitly disclose; however, Collomby discloses wherein adding the additional lines is based on online usage of a unique code associated with the at least one member, and wherein the unique code is an embedded uniform resource location (URL) of a webpage (Collomby: See where lines are inputted for a client and added to a point level in ¶0064-0065. See client identification webpages with unique codes in ¶0062.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to combine Cooper with Collomby’s adding of additional lines in a multi-level structure are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features for determining a hierarchical marketing environment across several business entities, and because incorporating Collomby’s adding of additional lines in a multi-level structure in Cooper would have served Cooper’s pursuit of providing new income positions for the same distributor within a single distribution tree (See Cooper, Abstract); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 14, Cooper in view of Collomby discloses the method of claim 13.
Cooper does not explicitly disclose; however, Collomby discloses wherein the online usage of the unique code is at the webpage, and further comprising generating a new unique code based on the online usage of the unique code at the webpage by a device of a new member (Collomby: See where lines are inputted for a client and added to a point level in ¶0064-0065. See client identification webpages with unique codes in ¶0062.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to combine Cooper with Collomby’s adding of additional lines in a multi-level structure are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features for determining a hierarchical marketing environment across several business entities, and because incorporating Collomby’s adding of additional lines in a multi-level structure in Cooper would have served Cooper’s pursuit of providing new income positions for the same distributor within a single distribution tree (See Cooper, Abstract); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 15, Cooper in view of Collomby the method of claim 14.
Cooper does not explicitly disclose; however, Collomby discloses further comprising creating a new relationship between the new member and the at least one member within the merged multiline user structure, and storing information regarding the new relationship in association with the new unique code (Collomby: See where lines are inputted for a client and added to a point level in ¶0064-0065. See client identification webpages with unique codes in ¶0062. See ¶0076-0078 where the new member is merged within the business entity and stored according to their system code.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to combine Cooper with Collomby’s adding of additional lines in a multi-level structure are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features for determining a hierarchical marketing environment across several business entities, and because incorporating Collomby’s adding of additional lines in a multi-level structure in Cooper would have served Cooper’s pursuit of providing new income positions for the same distributor within a single distribution tree (See Cooper, Abstract); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 16, Cooper in view of Collomby discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising identifying one or more relationships with one or more members that are upline from the at least one member within the merged multiline data structure based on the data for the at least one member (Cooper: See ¶0077-0078: where the multi-line tree structure shows individuals and their parent/child relationship with individuals upline/downline on the multi-level structure.).
As per Claim 17, Cooper in view of Collomby discloses the method of claim 16.
Cooper does not explicitly disclose; however, Collomby discloses further comprising associating the at least one member and the upline members with an online interaction based on usage of the unique code during the online interaction (Collomby: See ¶0076-0078 where the new member is merged within the business entity and stored according to their system code, whereas the new member is associated with a upline sponsor.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to combine Cooper with Collomby’s adding of additional lines in a multi-level structure are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features for determining a hierarchical marketing environment across several business entities, and because incorporating Collomby’s adding of additional lines in a multi-level structure in Cooper would have served Cooper’s pursuit of providing new income positions for the same distributor within a single distribution tree (See Cooper, Abstract); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cooper et al. (US 2020/0097479): Computers for enabling an entity such as a robot to build other robots that are deployed into service and have a system for tracking performance through a tracking tree of essentially any width or depth and to receive tracking data for the entire width and depth of the tracking tree. In some embodiments, building the multi-line tracking plan includes transitioning an entity's existing tracking plan that is limited in width, depth or width and depth to a new tracking plan that is unlimited in width and depth. In some embodiments, computers can cause an entity to re-enter the tracking tree, within one or more downlines, thereby providing new tracking positions for the same entity within a single tracking tree. Embodiments may include computer systems that auto-balance volume that is generated from the downlines, such that the volume is placed where it would generate the greatest amount of tracking data for a sponsoring entity.
Tyler et al. (US 2012/0239472): Embodiments of the present invention relate generally to business methods and systems for retail marketing, and specifically to Retail Customer Referral Compensation Programs for using Performance-Driven criteria to award Production Points for creating a Position Changing Point Driven matrix and determining a Referring Customer's position and compensation within that matrix.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON MICHELLE NEAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9334. The examiner can normally be reached 9-2pm ET, M-F.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 5712705389. 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.
ALLISON MICHELLE NEAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/ALLISON M NEAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625