DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on December 10, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 19 have been amended. Claims 4 and 13 were earlier cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 15 and 17-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A Section 101 analysis is below.
Step 1 – are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The method of claim 1, system of claim 10 and CRM of claim 19 are within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong one – do the claims recite a judicial exception, which is an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Using the text of claim 1 as an example, claims 1, 10 and 19 recite:
A method of temporary voucher sharing, comprising: receiving, from a user device associated with a user, at a processor of an administrator device, a favordrop request created at the user device, the favordrop request including a beneficiary identifier associated with a beneficiary, a request value, a retailer location, and an expiration time;
defining, using the processor, a favordrop comprising a balance corresponding to the request value;
assigning, using the processor, the favordrop to the beneficiary;
sending, using the processor, a notification to a beneficiary device associated with the beneficiary identifier, the notification comprising notification data, wherein the notification datais at least partially displayable on a display screen dashboard of the beneficiary device;
and when a current time reaches the expiration time, the processor is configured to: revoke the favordrop from the beneficiary;
assign the favordrop to the user;
and send a return notification to the user device;
wherein the notification data is at least partially displayable on said display screen of the user device and the return notification comprises the notification data;
and wherein the notification data comprises a code, which, when input by a retailer device associated with the retailer location, applies the balance of the favordrop as a payment for a purchase at the retailer location;
wherein the code is code generated by the processor of the administrator device, the code being uniquely associated with the favordrop and configured to be invalidated upon expiration of the favordrop, and wherein the return notification includes a new code generated by the processor to enable the user to redeem the favordrop after revocation from the beneficiary;
and wherein the return notification is configured to cause the new code and the balance to be immediately displayable on the display screen dashboard of the user device upon revocation of the favordrop from the beneficiary, enabling real-time redemption by the user without requiring a separate transaction.
Referring to the limitations above, independent claims 1, 10 and 19 recite an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106. Specifically, claims 1, 10 and 19 recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, as drafted each of claims 1, 10 and 19 only recite the commercial or legal interaction of an agreement in the form of a contract that is sharing a voucher by a user that has a beneficiary, a request value, a retailer location, and an expiration time where the voucher is revoked and the balance of the voucher is returned to the user upon reaching the expiration time. Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Accordingly, claims 1, 10 and 19 are directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong two – do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Integration of the judicial exception into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, these claims only recite the additional elements of a user device, processor, administrator device, beneficiary identifier, beneficiary device, display screen and retailer device to perform a method of temporary voucher sharing, comprising: receiving, from a user a favordrop request, the favordrop request including a beneficiary, a request value, a retailer location, and an expiration time; defining a favordrop comprising a balance corresponding to the request value; assigning the favordrop to the beneficiary; sending a notification to the beneficiary identifier, the notification comprising notification data, and when a current time reaches the expiration time, revoke the favordrop from the beneficiary; assign the favordrop to the user; and send a return notification; wherein the return notification comprises the notification data; and wherein the notification data comprises a code, which, when input by a retailer location, applies the balance of the favordrop as a payment for a purchase at the retailer location; and wherein the code being uniquely associated with the favordrop and configured to be invalidated upon expiration of the favordrop, and wherein the return notification includes a new code to enable the user to redeem the favordrop after revocation from the beneficiary. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) discussing when the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished this does not show integration into a practical application. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application. It is further noted that the claimed invention as recited in claims 1, 10 and 19 do not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer components themselves or a technological solution to a technological problem. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(g) regarding adding insignificant extra-solution activity including data gathering and manipulation. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(h) regarding field of use and technological environment.
Step 2B – do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a user device, processor, administrator device, beneficiary identifier, beneficiary device, display screen and retailer device to perform a method of temporary voucher sharing, comprising: receiving, from a user a favordrop request, the favordrop request including a beneficiary, a request value, a retailer location, and an expiration time; defining a favordrop comprising a balance corresponding to the request value; assigning the favordrop to the beneficiary; sending a notification to the beneficiary identifier, the notification comprising notification data, and when a current time reaches the expiration time, revoke the favordrop from the beneficiary; assign the favordrop to the user; and send a return notification; wherein the return notification comprises the notification data; and wherein the notification data comprises a code, which, when input by a retailer location, applies the balance of the favordrop as a payment for a purchase at the retailer location; and wherein the code is a code generated by the processor of the administrator device, the code being uniquely associated with the favordrop and configured to be invalidated upon expiration of the favordrop, and wherein the return notification includes a new code generated by the processor to enable the user to redeem the favordrop after revocation from the beneficiary; and wherein the return notification is configured to cause the new code and the balance to be immediately displayable on the display screen dashboard of the user device upon revocation of the favordrop from the beneficiary, enabling real-time redemption by the user without requiring a separate transaction amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The computer components implementing the abstract idea appear to be generic in view of at least Applicant’s specification, [0055]. Accordingly, claims 1, 10 and 19 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In view of the above analysis, independent claims 1, 10 and 19 are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 do not cure the deficiencies in their respective base claims. Specifically, claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 merely refine the abstract idea (2A1) by invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (2A2, 2B). Regarding the further additional elements in the dependent claims of a third party payment processor and secure communication protocol (claims 3 and 12); and job scheduler (claims 5 and 14), please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application or provide significantly more.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tutte (US 2018/0060841) in view of Zamer (US 2015/0193803) in view of Daito (JP 2007164380 A).
Claim 1 recites:
A method of temporary voucher sharing, comprising: (Tutte, Fig. 4, [0058], method)
receiving, from a user device associated with a user, at a processor of an administrator device, a favordrop request created at the user device, the favordrop request including a beneficiary identifier associated with a beneficiary, a request value, a retailer location, and an expiration time; (Tutte, Fig. 4, [0058], payment request, step 210; Figs. 1-3, [0043], payment server 130, client devices 144, 146, payment request data associated with a value and time period. Although Tutte, [0045], discusses merchant location, Tutte does not specifically disclose the request includes retailer location. Zamer, [0024], discusses vouchers may include effective time, value and location of discount. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the payment request of Tutte to include location as in Zamer in order to apply vouchers that are valid as discussed in Zamer, [0048], and Tutte, [0043]. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to include the features as taught in Zamer in Tutte since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in 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. Additionally, both are in the field of redeemable transactions and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination to be predictable.)
defining, using the processor, a favordrop comprising a balance corresponding to the request value; (Tutte, Figs. 1-3, [0043], pre-paid amount)
assigning, using the processor, the favordrop to the beneficiary; (Tutte, Figs. 1-3, [0043], intended beneficiary)
sending, using the processor, a notification to a beneficiary device associated with the beneficiary identifier, the notification comprising notification data, wherein the notification data is at least partially displayable on a display screen dashboard of the beneficiary device; and (Tutte, Figs. 1-3, [0044], notification relayed to second client device 146 associated with beneficiary 142)
when a current time reaches the expiration time, the processor is configured to: revoke the favordrop from the beneficiary; and (Tutte, Figs. 1-3, [0043], if pre-paid item is not claimed by beneficiary within a specified duration, refunded to benefactor)
assign the favordrop to the user; and (Tutte, Figs. 1-3, [0043], if pre-paid item is not claimed by beneficiary within a specified duration, refunded to benefactor)
send a return notification to the user device; (Tutte, Fig. 8, [0062], notification to first client device 144 of the benefactor 140 indicating that the pre-paid item has not been claimed)
wherein the notification data is at least partially displayable on said display screen dashboard of the user device and the return notification comprises the notification data; and (Tutte, Fig. 3, [0054], display 190; [0062], notification to first client device 144 of the benefactor 140 indicating that the pre-paid item has not been claimed)
wherein the notification data comprises a code, which, when input by a retailer device associated with the retailer location, applies the balance of the favordrop as a payment for a purchase at the retailer location; and (Tutte, [0044], notification includes redeemable payment data in suitable format including code)
wherein the code is code generated by the processor of the administrator device, the code being uniquely associated with the favordrop and configured to be invalidated upon expiration of the favordrop, and (Tutte, [0044], “The redeemable payment data may be provided in any suitable format and may include by way of example a machine readable code”; [0060], expiry period. It is respectfully submitted that the code of Tutte reads on the code of Tutte under BRI and that it is obvious “redeemable payment data” of Tutte could contain payment terms such as usage and expiration. Please see MPEP 2144.01.)
wherein the return notification includes a … code generated by the processor to enable the user to redeem the favordrop after revocation from the beneficiary; and wherein the return notification is configured to cause the … code and the balance to be immediately displayable on the display screen dashboard of the user device upon revocation of the favordrop from the beneficiary, enabling real-time redemption by the user without requiring a separate transaction. (Tutte, Figs. 1-3, [0043], if pre-paid item is not claimed by beneficiary within a specified duration, refunded to benefactor; [0044], code. [0054] “A display 190 may also be operatively connected to the processor 155. The display 190 may include a screen or any other such presentation device that enables the user to view various options, parameters, and results,”)
Tutte does not explicitly disclose a new code generated. Daito teaches a new code generated (Daito [page 8] Subsequently, by the operation of the cancellation / reissue processing unit 115, a new card number for the prepaid card to be reissued is assigned, and a record relating to the new master information is newly created in the master information storage unit 116. . The created master information is preferably configured to copy the attribute information from the master information of the prepaid card whose use is suspended. ... and the latest balance is transferred to the usage history table corresponding to the newly created master information created in the usage history storage unit 117 And record.
Daito [page 9] Subsequently, the balance is identified from the usage history corresponding to the master information of the prepaid card that has been identified as lost or stolen ...and the usage history of the newly issued prepaid card is created and identified. The transferred balance is transferred (S33). Finally, a confirmation mail notifying that the reissue process has been accepted is transmitted to the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to include the features as taught in Tutte in Daito since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in 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. Additionally, both are in the field of redeemable transactions and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination to be predictable.
Claims 10 and 19 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected on the same grounds. Regarding system claim 10, Tutte, [0043], system. Regarding CRM claim 19, Tutte, [0017], CRM.
Claim 3 recites:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: verifying, using the processor, that a payment transaction for the request value has successfully completed using a payment request initiated by the user device and thereafter defining the balance as being equal to the request value, (Tutte, [0046], notification of status of transaction; [0043], value)
wherein said verifying includes receiving a confirmation from a third-party payment processor. (Tutte, [0046], MasterCard Digital Enablement Service (MDES), notification. Tutte, [0046], also discusses tokens reading on the secure communication protocol.)
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 5 recites:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: creating, using a job scheduler executed by the processor, an expiration job in a job queue managed by the job scheduler, wherein the expiration job comprises one or more instructions, executable by the processor, to revoke the favordrop from the beneficiary; wherein the job scheduler is configured to instruct the processor to execute the one or more instructions of the expiration job after the job scheduler determines that the current time reaches the expiration time, thereby revoking the favordrop from the beneficiary when the current time reaches the expiration time, and (Tuttle, [0057], payment server 130, reminders that redeemable transaction is close to expiring, database 138; Fig. 8, [0062], refund to account of benefactor)
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 6 recites:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the retailer device associated with the retailer location, at the processor, a redemption notification that the favordrop was applied as a payment for a purchase at the retailer location; and updating, using the processor, the balance based on a portion of the favordrop applied as the payment for the purchase at the retailer location, (Tutte, [0045], [0046], payment server 130 is in communication with merchant system, notification indicating status of transaction)
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 8 recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the code comprises a quick-response code, a numerical code, or an alpha-numerical code. (Tutte, [0044], redeemable payment data in suitable format including quick response (QR) code, identification number, password, etc.)
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 8 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 9 recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the notification data further comprises the balance and the expiration time. (Tutte, [0044], notification with redeemable payment data; [0043], payment data includes predetermined time period, monetary value)
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 9 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant's amendments rectify the previous rejections under 35 USC § 112.
The rejection under 35 USC § 112 is lifted.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“Applicant's amended claims, therefore, further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by reciting a specific, technology-rooted user interface mechanism that improves the operation of electronic voucher systems through real-time, automated reassignment of the favordrop with a new code upon expiration…. This interface ensures that the user regains control of the balance in real-time, without manual intervention, eliminating the delay and value loss inherent in prior systems, which require refund requests….Applicant's amended claims, therefore, further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by reciting a specific, technology-rooted user interface mechanism that improves the operation of electronic voucher systems through real-time, automated reassignment of the favordrop with a new code upon expiration. "
Examiner responds:
The proposed invention solves a business/financial concern relating to returning expired gift certificate (favordrop) balances to the sender. It does not constitute a technological innovation.
The focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers or user interfaces as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers and user interfaces as tools.
The claims’ invocation of computers, networks, and displays does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions on a set of generic computer components and display devices.
Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than “merely applying” off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, synthesizing, sending, and presenting the desired information. The additional elements amount to no more than "merely applying " instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Using a generic computer and user interfaces to implement an abstract idea does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application. The claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process or to automate a manual or mental process. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) - Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception: Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The Specification indicates the use of generic components:
[0065] User device 8 may be a cell phone, a laptop computer, a notebook computer, a netbook computer, a tablet, or a smart phone. User device 8 may comprise a display screen 9, which may be configured to display information.
[0066] Beneficiary device 18 may be a cell phone, a laptop computer, a notebook computer, a netbook computer, a tablet, or a smart phone. Beneficiary device 18 may comprise a display screen 20, which may be configured to display information.
[0077] The subsystem(s) or system(s) may also include any suitable processor known in the art, such as a parallel processor.
[0079] Processor 14 may be implemented in practice by any combination of hardware, software, and firmware.
Furthermore, “control of the balance in real-time, without manual intervention, eliminating the delay and value loss inherent in prior systems” and “automated reassignment of the favordrop with a new code upon expiration”, express an abstract idea and not a technological innovation.
The Applicant states:
“Applicant's invention, as claimed, addresses a technical problem in electronic voucher systems, as described in paragraphs [0004]-[0005] of the specification, where unused gift card balances are lost or require manual processes to reclaim, leading to value loss for the buyer and beneficiary, not just in the value of the voucher but in the cost of manually servicing the voucher if its value is to be retained or repurpose. … Applicant's invention, as claimed, does not merely apply the abstract idea using generic components but instead use these components to implement a specific technical solution: automated voucher reassignment with code invalidation and regeneration. "
Examiner responds:
The matter of “where unused gift card balances are lost or require manual processes to reclaim, leading to value loss for the buyer and beneficiary, not just in the value of the voucher but in the cost of manually servicing the voucher if its value is to be retained or repurpose” and “automated voucher reassignment with code invalidation and regeneration” express a business process concern, not a technological one.
No specific arrangement exists as the Specification reads, [0079] Processor 14 may be implemented in practice by any combination of hardware, software, and firmware.
The rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's amendments required the application of new/additional prior art.
New prior art includes:
Daito (“MANAGEMENT METHOD FOR PREPAID CARD AND PREPAID CARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM”, Japanese Publication Number: JP 2007164380 A)
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection made under 35 USC § 103 are rendered moot by the introduction of additional prior art.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: US 20240104531; US 11580505; WO 2010054366; US 20090138396; US 20090055279; US 20050246293; US 6834270; US 20040044739; US 6163771; and US 5949044.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10am to 4pm.
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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights