Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
In response to the preliminary amendment filed on 7/31/2023, claims 1-2 have been amended, and new claims 4-16 are added.
In response to the reply filed on 8/6/2025, claims 1-6 are withdrawn. Claims 1-16 are pending, and claims 7-16 are under examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/6/2025.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 7-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,662,897. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this application narrows down the step of “collecting and analyzing a plurality of statistics on the number of You Did It Right! cards issued” of ‘897 patent with “compiling” and “aggregating” steps, which are obvious variation.
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, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 11/340,205, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. In particular, claim 7 recites limitations “receiving by a first entity computer first electronic card data by respective actions of multiple machine users of a client entity sending the first electronic card data across the internet; compiling, by the first entity computer, the received first electronic card data into first compiled data; aggregating, by the first entity computer, the first compiled data into first aggregate data having anonymity with respect to the each user of the multiple machine users; sending, by the first entity computer, the first aggregate data to the client entity computer; issuing by the client entity, at least in part according to the first aggregate data, a respective electronic card to each user of the multiple machine users; logging on to at least one computer, by each user of the multiple machine users, and sending via the at least one computer second electronic card data to the first entity computer across the internet; receiving, by the first entity computer, the second electronic card data across the internet from the multiple machine users; compiling, by the first entity computer, the second received electronic card data into second compiled data; aggregating, by the first entity computer, the second compiled data into second aggregate data having anonymity with respect to the each user of the multiple machine users; and sending, by the first entity computer, the second aggregate data to the client entity computer.” These limitations are directed to incentive company’s post reporting process. See generally Spec. ¶¶46-54. The ‘205 application does not provide the corresponding disclosure and therefore lacks written description support.
Furthermore, the disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 14/134,296 and 16/543,149, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. See infra written description rejection.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claims 7-9, 11-12, and 14-16 recite the term “machine users” where the specification does not cite any single instance of the term.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 14 recites “the series comprising said,” which should read “the series comprising.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the 7/31/2023 preliminary amendment introduces new limitations “compiling, by the first entity computer, the received first electronic card data into first compiled data; aggregating, by the first entity computer, the first compiled data into first aggregate data,” and “compiling, by the first entity computer, the second received electronic card data into second compiled data.” The original disclosure, at best, discloses aggregating data and does not provide any written description support for the compiling step. See Spec. ¶¶27, 46-54. Indeed, the specification does not cites any single instance of “compiling” step at all. For the reason, dependent claims thereof are rejected as well.
Further, regarding claim 7, the 7/31/2023 preliminary amendment introduces another new limitations (i) “aggregating, by the first entity computer, the first compiled data into first aggregate data having anonymity with respect to the each user of the multiple machine users” and (ii) “aggregating, by the first entity computer, the second compiled data into second aggregate data having anonymity with respect to the each user of the multiple machine users.” In particular, the original disclosure supports the limitation (ii) but not the limitation (i). The relevant portions are reduced below:
[0052]The retail center then seeks reimbursement (as necessary such as for the coupon embodiment) from either the third party card provider or the incentive company as necessitated by the particular embodiment. The incentive company then receives information entered into the terminal by the employee from the card regarding the peer and workplace review by the employee of the other employees. Communicating with the retail center or the third party card provider, the incentive company also receives data regarding the respective redemptions of rewards. The incentive company then aggregates, analyzes, and reports the data to the client company, thereby allowing the company to have a record of success and failures while allowing whistle blowers the benefit of anonymity.
[0053]Likewise, in a hypothetical business or manufacturing setting where aggregate employees' health is being promoted, monitored and rewarded, the incentive company would provide the client company with literature regarding healthy living. The incentive company or a medical firm would schedule health screenings whereby employees are examined. When employees receive positive checkups or otherwise show improvement in health, such as an improved cholesterol score, the employees are given you-did-it right cards. The employees, having received a You Did It Right! card would then access a computer terminal, enter the You Did It Right! card data, receive a reward, and redeem the reward at a retail location. The retail center then seeks reimbursement (as necessary such as for the coupon embodiment) from either the third party card provider or the incentive company as necessitated by the particular embodiment. The incentive company then receives information entered into the terminal by the employee from the You Did It Right! card regarding the health status of the employee.
[0054]Communicating with the retail center or the third party card provider, the incentive company also receives data regarding the respective redemptions of rewards. The incentive company then aggregates, analyzes, and reports the data to the client company. As such, without disclosing private health data of individual employees, the incentive company is able to report on the aggregate health of the client company's work force as well as any improvements. Further, the incentive company will be able to tailor health incentive programs for higher risk employees without penetrating the employee/employer privacy wall.
Spec. ¶¶52-54. Here, at best, the specification discloses (ii) “aggregating, by the first entity computer, the second compiled data into second aggregate data having anonymity with respect to the each user of the multiple machine users” after a respective electronic card is issued to multiple machine users, i.e., issuing You Did It Right! cards to employees, but does not support the limitation (i) “aggregating, by the first entity computer, the first compiled data into first aggregate data having anonymity with respect to the each user of the multiple machine users,” which requires anonymity of submitted data prior to the issuance of the award. Thus, the original disclosure fails to provide written description support for the limitation “aggregating, by the first entity computer, the first compiled data into first aggregate data having anonymity with respect to the each user of the multiple machine users.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the each user of the multiple machine users" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 7 appears to provide its antecedent basis “each user of the multiple machine users" subsequently in line 12. Furthermore, claim 7 recites another “each user of the multiple machine users" in line 13. It is ambiguous which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation in line refers to “each user of the multiple machine users" in lines 9 or 12, or another new “each user of the multiple machine users." For the reason, dependent claims thereof are rejected as well.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the client entity computer" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the reason, dependent claims thereof are rejected as well.
Claim 14 recites the phrase “wherein the conducts a series of steps iteratively” in line 1. The phrase appears to omit a subject between “the” and “conducts” and renders the claim indefinite. For the reason, dependent claims thereof are rejected as well.
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 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 7 recite(s): a method of issuing electronic cards using cyclically anonymized aggregate data, the method comprising:
receiving by a first entity computer first electronic card data by respective actions of multiple machine users1 of a client entity sending the first electronic card data across the internet;
compiling, by the first entity computer, the received first electronic card data into first compiled data;
aggregating, by the first entity computer, the first compiled data into first aggregate data having anonymity with respect to the each user of the multiple machine users;
sending, by the first entity computer, the first aggregate data to the client entity computer;
issuing by the client entity, at least in part according to the first aggregate data, a respective electronic card to each user of the multiple machine users;
logging on to at least one computer, by each user of the multiple machine users, and sending via the at least one computer second electronic card data to the first entity computer across the internet;
receiving, by the first entity computer, the second electronic card data across the internet from the multiple machine users;
compiling, by the first entity computer, the second received electronic card data into second compiled data;
aggregating, by the first entity computer, the second compiled data into second aggregate data having anonymity with respect to the each user of the multiple machine users; and
sending, by the first entity computer, the second aggregate data to the client entity computer.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “entity computer,” “electronic card,” “logging on to[] computer,” “sending/receiving [data],” and “across internet,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a person awarding employees’ superior performance and reporting aggregated stats to their employer.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The non-highlighted aforementioned, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the aforementioned additional elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a person preparing a report of employees’ superior performance to their employer
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “entity computer,” “electronic card,” “logging on to[] computer,” “sending/receiving [data],” and “across internet.”
The “entity computer” in the aforementioned steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The “electronic card” and “across internet” in the aforementioned steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claim recites the following additional elements: “card,” “logging on to computer” and “sending/receiving [data].” The additional element step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally linking the use of the aforementioned concept to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned step(s) amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that in the reward industry, providing a card to recipient is well-known, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of displaying information to perform the aforementioned step(s) amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., and Ameranth, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that displaying data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 8-16 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites the additional limitations of “alpha-numeric identifier” [claim 10], which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, insignificant extra-solution activity, or that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity or well-known, routine, and conventional activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) “alpha-numeric identifier” was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here), and the Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., and Ameranth, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that displaying data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the aforementioned additional elements of providing unique ID for redemption are well-known, routine and conventional activity in the reward industry. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 7-16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Martin et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0015960), hereinafter Martin.
Regarding claim 7, Martin discloses a method of issuing electronic cards using cyclically anonymized aggregate data (Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving by a first entity computer first electronic card data by respective actions of multiple machine users of a client entity sending the first electronic card data across the internet (366 in FIG. 3; ¶57: “Cardholder 202 then participates in the wellness program, as per block 364, and his or her participation is tracked by wellness vendor 352, as per block 366”);
compiling, by the first entity computer, the received first electronic card data into first compiled data (¶57: “data stored in incentive tracking database 438”);
aggregating, by the first entity computer, the first compiled data into first aggregate data having anonymity with respect to the each user of the multiple machine users (¶64 explains collecting of user activities to earn rewards with appropriate privacy safeguards: “running a distance in a certain time, doing a certain number of push ups, or even using a treadmill or other exercise equipment having a computer link to report performance, subject to appropriate privacy safeguards”; ¶63 further explains that the privacy safeguards is protected with anonimity: “Accordingly, such purchase level data could be aggregated and/or rendered anonymous to protect privacy, or other suitable measures could be taken.”;);
sending, by the first entity computer, the first aggregate data to the client entity computer (¶48: “Preferably, in one or more embodiments of the invention, data is fed back to the employer”);
issuing by the client entity, at least in part according to the first aggregate data, a respective electronic card to each user of the multiple machine users (368 in FIG. 3; ¶57: “wellness vendor 352 notifies cardholder 202 of his or her reward, as per blocks 368 and 370”);
logging on to at least one computer, by each user of the multiple machine users, and sending via the at least one computer second electronic card data to the first entity computer across the internet (386 in FIG. 3; ¶59: “cardholder 202 makes a qualified purchase at a merchant, as per block 386.”; ¶78: “Authentication module 672 may be provided to limit access to authorized persons”);
receiving, by the first entity computer, the second electronic card data across the internet from the multiple machine users (388 in FIG. 3; ¶59: “Standard authorization, clearing, and settlement can be carried out between and among acquirer 206, the aforementioned operator 208 of the payment network, and issuer/processor 210, as indicated in block 388”);
compiling, by the first entity computer, the second received electronic card data into second compiled data (390 in FIG. 3; ¶59: “Issuer processor 210 and/or operator 208 then create appropriate transactional reporting, as per block 390”;);
aggregating, by the first entity computer, the second compiled data into second aggregate data having anonymity with respect to the each user of the multiple machine users (¶63: “Accordingly, such purchase level data could be aggregated and/or rendered anonymous to protect privacy, or other suitable measures could be taken.”;); and
sending, by the first entity computer, the second aggregate data to the client entity computer (392 in FIG. 3; ¶59: “Issuer processor 210 and/or operator 208 then create appropriate transactional reporting, as per block 390, and the same is provided to wellness vendor 352, who in turn provides same to employer 350, as per block 39”).
Regarding claim 8, Martin further discloses the first entity computer providing to a supervisor the respective electronic card issued to each user of the multiple machine users (¶50: “The user is indicative of a number of individuals who might interface with the system, including[] an employee or other agent or contractor acting on behalf of employer 350”).
Regarding claim 9, Martin further discloses that issuing by the client entity the respective electronic card to each user of the multiple machine users comprises the issuing the respective electronic card to each user of the multiple machine users (378 in FIG. 3; ¶58: “the cardholder 202 receiving the rewards card in block 378”; see also card 102 in FIG. 1; ¶18).
Regarding claim 10, Martin further discloses that each said electronic card includes a respective alpha-numeric identifier (¶83: “the reward payment card having a predefined designated product code”).
Regarding claim 11, Martin further discloses that logging on to at least one computer, by each user of the multiple machine users, comprises entering the respective alpha-numeric identifier (¶63: “Detecting may be facilitated by using a pre-defined product code for the stored value card, such as the above-identified MHA designated product code.”).
Regarding claim 12, Martin further discloses in response to the logging on to at least one computer, by each user of the multiple machine users, and entering the respective alpha-numeric identifier, issuing a respective reward card to said user (¶63: “detecting subsequently-made purchases by the at least first one of the employees with the stored value reward card… Preferably, the purchase level data that is reported is associated with at least those of the subsequently made purchases that are qualified purchases… Detecting may be facilitated by using a pre-defined product code for the stored value card, such as the above-identified MHA designated product code.”; ).
Regarding claim 13, Martin further discloses receiving, by the first entity computer, a reporting of redemption of the respective reward card by at least one said user (388, 390 in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Martin further discloses that the conducts a series of steps iteratively, the series comprising said: receiving by the first entity computer; compiling, by the first entity computer; aggregating, by the first entity computer; the first compiled data into first aggregate data having anonymity with respect to the each user of the multiple machine users; sending, by the first entity computer; issuing by the client entity; and logging on to the at least one computer, by each user of the multiple machine users, and sending via the at least one computer second electronic card data to the first entity computer across the internet (¶43: “A fully integrated product configuration would include partnerships with wellness and incentive vendors, issuer processors, issuers and an operator 208, to deliver a recurring incentive offering for the cardholder for completing tasks established by the employer.”).
Regarding claim 15, Martin further discloses that the first entity tailors programs for the multiple machine users by use of at least the first and second aggregate data having anonymity with respect to the each user of the multiple machine users without penetrating a employee/employer privacy wall (¶56: “during "earn" phase 330, employer 350 and wellness vendor 352 create a wellness program with incentives, as per block 354. This can be carried out, for example, as follows. Vendor 352 can create wellness platform, incentive platform, and reporting platform 402, 418, 420, and can set up a relationship with issuer/processor 210 operating prepaid processing platform 426.”; ¶63: “Accordingly, such purchase level data could be aggregated and/or rendered anonymous to protect privacy, or other suitable measures could be taken.”;).
Regarding claim 16, Martin further discloses that the first entity sends the first and second aggregate data having anonymity with respect to the each user of the multiple machine users to the client entity without disclosing private health data of the multiple machine users (¶63: “Accordingly, such purchase level data could be aggregated and/or rendered anonymous to protect privacy, or other suitable measures could be taken.”; ¶43: “a re-loadable prepaid card is given from an employer to an employee, as a consolidated source for incentives for participation in health and wellness programs”; ¶64: “Non-limiting examples of such an event include smoking cessation, weight management achievement, stress reduction achievement, meeting with a dietician, carrying out a health self-assessment, receiving adoption assistance, and meeting a fitness goal”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J HONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0993. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
THOMAS J. HONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/THOMAS J HONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 The specification does not provide any antecedent basis for this coined term “machine user.” The term is interpreted as “a user having an access of machine” under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Prosecution Insights