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
Claims 2-18 and 21-22 have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11/12/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Independent Claims 2, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are in a statutory category of invention. However, the claims recite storing member information in a database that includes at least a first data structure configured to store a first set of lines corresponding to a first set of existing relationships and a second data structure configured to store a second set of lines corresponding to a second set of existing relationships; receiving data for at least one member associated with the member information stored in the first data structure or the second data structure, the received data regarding at least a position of the at least one member within the respective data structure and corresponding to a set of relationships associated with the at least one member; merging the first data structure and the second data structure to create a new merged multiline data structure that includes the received data for the at least one member, wherein the received information regarding the set of relationships of the at least one member is integrated into and maintained within the merged multiline data structure; and storing the merged multiline data structure, wherein the merged multiline data structure is updateable to add one or more additional lines based on information from a global positioning system (GPS) of one or more new members associated with the one or more additional lines. This is considered in the Abstract Idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity - advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The additional elements are considered in memory. The GPS is not positively recited but just info from a GPS that is not positively recited. These are considered generic. The generically recited computer elements do not add a practical application or meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations only perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Also, the additional hardware elements are: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions. Viewed separately or as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim does not provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea, in that there is no improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of a computer, no application with, or by use of a particular machine, no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, no specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routing and conventional in the field, no unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 3-18 are not considered directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above. The use of GPS in the dependents and IP address and URL codes is considered generic. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful description for the claimed invention, these elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not more than the abstract concepts identified in the claimed invention. Hence, these dependent claims are also rejected under 101.
Please see the 35 USC 101 section at the Examination Guidance and Training Materials page on the USPTO website.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-6, 8-12, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (20140074625) in view of Brown (20160034938).
Claims 2, 21, 22. Cooper discloses a method for merging at least two data structures into a multiline data structure, the method comprising:
storing member information in a database that includes at least a first data structure configured to store a first set of lines corresponding to a first set of existing relationships and a second data structure configured to store a second set of lines corresponding to a second set of existing relationships ([5, 78, 79]; Figs. 6, 7);
receiving data for at least one member associated with the member information stored in the first data structure or the second data structure, the received data regarding at least a position of the at least one member within the respective data structure and corresponding to a set of relationships associated with the at least one member ([5, 78, 79]; Figs. 6, 7);
merging the first data structure and the second data structure to create a new merged multiline data structure that includes the received data for the at least one member, wherein the received information regarding the set of relationships of the at least one member is integrated into and maintained within the merged multiline data structure ([5, 78, 79]; Figs. 6, 7); and
storing the merged multiline data structure in memory, wherein the merged multiline data structure is updateable to add one or more additional lines ([5, 78, 79]; Figs. 6, 7; for new line see new paylines at [11]; also see Fig. 10).
Examiner notes Applicant Spec at [64, 152] for the following features. Cooper does not explicitly disclose add one or more additional lines based on information from a global positioning system (GPS) of one or more new members associated with the one or more additional lines. However, Brown discloses MLM hierarchies [7, 30] and adding new users to MLM (see new users or newly registered at [25, 40, 42]) and adding new members based on new/potential users being nearby (see nearby and invite and potential user and create an account at [40], Fig. 3) and also searching for people based on location and GPS ([44]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Brown’s MLM and adding people based on GPS and proximity to Cooper’s MLM and adding new lines/people. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better add new lines/people.
In further regards to claim 21, discloses a memory and processor ([102]).
Claim 3. Cooper does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 2, further comprising generating a graphical user interface that presents a suggestion of the one or more additional lines. However, Cooper discloses a new paylines [11], Figs. 6, 7 and graphical representations of the new paylines [21] and using computer networks [105]. And, Brown discloses MLM [7] and online interface and web interfaces [13] and MLM and webpages [41] and multimedia interfaces [46, 48] and MLM and computer networks and webpages [62] and MLM and user interfaces for display [64]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Brown’s MLM and user interfaces for display to Cooper’s MLM and graphic representations of possible new downline structures. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better present possible MLM structures.
Claim 4. The combination of prior art further renders obvious the method of claim 3, wherein generating the suggestion is based on a physical distance between a location associated with the at least one member and a location associated with one of the new members based on information provided by the GPS (see claim 1 and nearby or proximity).
Claim 5. The combination of prior art further renders obvious the method of claim 3, wherein generating the suggestion is based on a travel time between a location associated with the at least one member and a location associated with one of the new members based on information provided by the GPS (Brown at [40, 44] shows being nearby and GPS location is interpreted to read on distance/proximity and therefore travel time, distance = rate x time so someone closer is less time; and the motivation is the same as claim 1).
Claim 6. Cooper does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 3 further comprising identifying a physical address associated with the at least one member and a physical address associated with the new member, wherein generating the suggestion is based on the physical addresses. However, Brown discloses MLM hierarchies [7, 30] and adding new members based on new/potential users being nearby (see nearby and invite and potential user and create an account at [40], Fig. 3) and also searching for people based on location and GPS ([44]). And, Brown also discloses user address [36] as location info. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Brown’s MLM and adding people based on location or address and proximity to Cooper’s MLM and adding new lines/people. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better add new lines/people.
Claim 8. Cooper further discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising assigning a priority to the new member based on a request received from a device of the at least one member (see Cooper and new user/line above and see Fig. 9, [24, 52] with entry position/priority based on income).
Claim 9. Cooper further discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising modifying the data regarding the set of relationships associated with the at least one member based the set of relationships exceeding a threshold maximum number ([78, 79]; “[0089] The method 1000 may be practiced where the multi-level marketing system is a system that has a predetermined maximum width or depth.”, so if a max threshold is reached then the next data/member has a different action).
Claim 10. Cooper does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 9, further comprising comparing GPS information associated with the at least one member to GPS information associated with another member, wherein modifying the data regarding the set of relationships includes creating a relationship between the stored information of a new member to the stored information of the other member. However, Cooper discloses a variety of MLM structures with different max widths or depths, Fig. 6. And, Cooper discloses adding new people/lines (see above). And, Brown discloses adding new people based on proximity and GPS (see above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to that when a max in Cooper is reached that a new person can be added elsewhere in the matrix and this can be done by Brown’s location proximity for adding new people. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better add new people.
Claim 11. Cooper further discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising adding one or more additional lines to the merged multiline data structure corresponding to new relationships associated with the at least one member until a threshold maximum number is reached (see Cooper, Fig. 6, 7, [78, 79]).
Claim 12. Cooper further discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising raising the threshold maximum number based on threshold criteria being met (see Cooper, Fig. 6, 7, [95] and note going from bounded to unbounded and claim 4, and the threshold me is that the bounded matrix is full).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (20140074625) in view of Brown (20160034938) in view of Mayer (20050086211).
Claim 7. Cooper does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 3 further comprising identifying an IP address associated with the at least one member and a physical address associated with the new member, wherein generating the suggestion is based on the IP address. However, Brown renders obvious the location criteria for adding new members above and using GPS for that. And, Mayer further discloses MLM [9] and using GPS or IP address and matching by area [76]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Mayer’s IP address and GPS to Brown’s adding users by location and GPS to Cooper’s adding users. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better add users.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (20140074625) in view of Brown (20160034938) in view of Campbell (20130204672).
Claim 13. Cooper does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 12, further comprising identifying that the threshold criteria are met based on 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. However, Campbell further discloses wherein meeting the threshold criteria is based on weighting one or more relationships between the at least one member and one or more downline members of the at least one member (see claim 6 with a member PV of the first volume, so only certain members are deemed relevant, while others are not, hence the first volume members are weighted heavily while the others are not). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Campbell’s weighting members to Cooper’s different line structures and members (Figs. 6, 7). One would have been motivated to do this in order to better incite members.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (20140074625) in view of Brown (20160034938) in view of Vorotyntsev “Voro” (20140195316).
Claim 14. Cooper does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 2, wherein adding the additional lines is further based on online usage of a unique code associated with the at least one member, wherein the unique code is an embedded uniform resource location (URL) of a webpage. However, Voro discloses MLM [7] and discloses the URl and unique code features [11, 14, 15, 22]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Voro’s unique code and sales in MLM to Cooper sales and MLM. One would have been motivated to do this in order better increase sales.
Claim 15. Cooper does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 14, 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. However, Voro discloses MLM [7] and discloses the URl and unique code features [11, 14, 15, 22]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Voro’s unique code and sales in MLM to Cooper sales and MLM. One would have been motivated to do this in order better increase sales.
Claim 16. Cooper does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 15, further comprising creating a new relationship between the new member and the at least one member within the merged multiline data structure, and storing information regarding the new relationship in association with the new unique code. However, Voro discloses MLM [7] and discloses the URl and unique code features [22]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Voro’s unique code and sales in MLM to Cooper sales and MLM. One would have been motivated to do this in order better increase sales.
Claim 17. Cooper further discloses the method of claim 14, 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 (see identifying all lines at [98] and claims 1, 11).
Claim 18. Cooper does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 17, 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. However, Voro discloses MLM [7] and discloses the URl and unique code features [11, 14, 15, 22]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Voro’s uique code and sales in MLM to Cooper sales and MLM. One would have been motivated to do this in order better increase sales.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a) Note related case 18090476;
b) Johnson [293] also discloses MLM and IP address.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTHUR DURAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ARTHUR DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 12/4/25