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 office action is response to the amendment filed on 1/13/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 21, 25, and 29 have been amended.
Claims 1-11 and 21-29 are pending and have been examined.
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 1-11 and 21-29 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.
Claims 1, 21, and 29 recite “wherein the prioritization mechanism prioritizes sharing users based on inclusion of a sharing-user-specific code in a shared link” and “the notification including at least one shared link from the plurality of shared links that is associated with a highest priority sharing user based on the inclusion of the sharing-user-specific code.” The examiner is unable to find support for these limitations in the original disclosure.
The options discussed for prioritizing links appear in paragraphs [0074]-[0081]. The specification supports prioritizing based on receiving user preference. It further states it can be based on “x criteria.” One example is assigning a sharer to a priority group, such as friends of the user. Another option is whether the sharing user had previously acted on a link provided by the receiving user in a reciprocal relationship. Additionally, “sharing users having shared a threshold number of links with the receiving user, sharing users most recently sharing links with the receiving user, and/or sharing users least recently sharing links with the receiving user may be prioritized.” Another supported option includes “sharing users closest to obtaining a reward from the merchant may be prioritized.” Further, they may be prioritized by “alternating priority among sharing users (e.g., a round robin prioritization approach).” Additionally, link validity and whether a sharer has been “muted” can be part of prioritization. The examiner cannot find any support for prioritizing based inclusion of sharing-user-specific- codes and as a result, such limitations are considered new matter. Applicant can point out where support for such limitations can be found in the original disclosure, amendment the claims, or cancel the claims. The remaining claims are rejected as each depends from claims 1 or 21.
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 1-11 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 are directed to a method. Claims 21-28 are directed to a system. Claim 29 is directed to a method. Thus, on their face they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A prong 1:
Claims 1, 21, and 29 recite virtually identical limitations. Claim 29 includes all the limitations of claims 1 and 21 and several limitations not found in claims 1 or 21. Claim 29 will be used as representative for the analysis below. Each claims additional elements will be addressed individually.
The following limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely descriptive of abstract concepts:
Claims 1, 21, 29:
receiving a plurality of requests from a plurality of sharing users to share a plurality of shared referrals with a receiving user, wherein one or more of the plurality of shared referrals includes sharing-user-specific codes, wherein the sharing-user-specific codes include a unique string of characters assigned to a respective sharing user that automatically initiate an offer to the respective sharing user upon redemption of a respective sharing-user-specific code by the receiving user;
detecting an interaction with an entity associated with a receiving user based on one of: detecting navigation to the entity; or detecting the entity included in search results;
determining the receiving user has received a plurality of shared referrals associated with the entity from a plurality of sharing users, wherein a data entry has been generated for each of the plurality of shared referrals, associated with an access address and stored in an account information data store; and each of the plurality of referrals and information associated with the plurality of referrals, including a validity status of the plurality of shared referrals, are stored in the account information data store;
determining a priority of the plurality of sharing users based on a prioritization mechanism associated with the receiving user, wherein the prioritization mechanism prioritizes sharing users based on inclusion of a sharing user-specific code in a shared referral;
based on the priority, generating and providing a notification for display to the user, the notification including at least one shared referral from the plurality of shared referrals that is associated with a highest priority sharing user based on the inclusion of the sharing-user-specific code;
wherein the notification further includes at least two shared referrals, and the at least two shared referrals are positioned or ordered relative to one another in the notification to indicate a relative priority of corresponding sharing users from the plurality of sharing users;
detecting a use of the sharing user-specific--code associated with the at least one shared referral; and
based on the use of the sharing user-specific code: modifying the data entry stored in the account information data store such that (i) each associated access address includes a validity status of the at least one shared referral stored in the account information data store updated from valid to invalid, and (ii) the data entry, in response to a query, transmits invalidity status transmission
The following dependent claim limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely further descriptive of abstract concepts:
Claims 2, 22:
further comprising: receiving historical shared referral engagement data associated with the receiving user, the historical shared referral engagement data including, for each historical shared referral displayed to the user, information associated with the respective historical shared referral and a level of engagement with the respective historical shared referral;
providing the historical shared referral engagement data and information associated with the at least one shared referral as input to a model trained to predict a likelihood of engagement with the at least one shared referral,
receiving a predicted likelihood of engagement with the at least one shared referral; and
based on the predicted likelihood of engagement at least meeting a predefined threshold, generating and displaying the notification.
Claim 3, 23:
wherein the notification further includes at least two shared referrals, and the at least two shared referrals are positioned or ordered relative to one another in the notification to indicate a relative priority of corresponding sharing users from the plurality of sharing users.
Claim 4, 24:
wherein the prioritization mechanism associated with the receiving user includes alternating priority among the plurality of sharing users or prioritizing at least one of:
sharing users assigned to a priority group by the receiving user, sharing users having engaged with referrals shared by the receiving user,
sharing users having shared a threshold number of referrals with the receiving user,
sharing users most recently sharing referrals with the receiving user,
sharing users least recently sharing referrals with the receiving user, or
sharing users closest to obtaining a reward.
Claim 5, 25:
wherein the information stored in the data store further includes conditions for using a code associated with each of the plurality of shared referrals, and detecting the use of the code associated with the at least one shared referral includes:
monitoring for interactions indicating the use of the code based on the conditions stored in the data store.
Claim 6, 26:
wherein monitoring for the interactions indicating the use of the code comprises:
detecting a selection of the at least one shared referral;
detecting a viewing of a first page of the entity by the user responsive to the selection of the at least one shared referral; and
detecting a viewing of a second page of the entity by the user, the second page associated with an interaction indicating the use of the code.
Claim 7, 27:
wherein monitoring for the interactions indicating the use of the code comprises:
accessing a plurality of communications received by a communication account associated with the receiving user; and
parsing the plurality of communications to identify at least one communication associated with the entity that indicates the use of the code.
Claim 8:
wherein a sharing user of the at least one shared referral provided the at least one shared referral to the receiving user and one or more other receiving users, and the modifying of the validity status of the at least one shared referral from valid to invalid prevents the at least one shared referral from being displayed
Claim 9:
further comprising: generating and providing a use notification to the sharing user of the at least one shared referral to indicate a use and prompt provision of a new shared referral associated with the entity to share with the one or more other receiving users.
Claim 10:
wherein detecting the interaction with the entity associated with the receiving user comprises one of: detecting navigation to the entity; or detecting the entity included in search results of a search
Claim 11:
wherein generating and displaying the notification comprises: generating and displaying the notification based on a type of the interaction detected with the entity, wherein a notification is generated and displayed to the user when the type of the interaction detected is a navigation to the entity, and an embedded notification is generated and displayed within the search results when the type of the interaction detected is the entity included in the search results.
Claim 28:
generating and providing a use notification to the sharing user of the at least one shared referral to indicate the use and prompt provision of a new shared referral associated with the entity to share with the one or more other receiving users, wherein a sharing user of the at least one shared referral provided the at least one shared referral to the receiving user and one or more other receiving users, and the modifying of the validity status of the at least one shared referral from valid to invalid prevents the at least one shared referral from being displayed
.
The claims provide a manner of prioritizing referrals received by a user when the user may be sent the same or similar referrals from multiple senders. The sender that has the highest priority is shown to the user. Further, a code is provided and once the code is used the validity of the referral in no longer valid. (see spec [0002], [0003]). Thus, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims embody certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, such activity is in the form of commercial interactions (in the form of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors).
Step 2A prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: server side system (claim 1, 21, 29); plurality of first computing devices (claim 1, 9, 21, 28, 29); second computing device of a receiving user (claim 1, 2, 6, 10, 21, 22, 26, 29); querying device (claim 1, 21, 29); site (claim 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 21, 27, 28, 29); links (claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29) associated with URL (claim 1, 21, 29); another computing device of the receiving user (claim 2, 22); machine learning system (claim 2, 22); loading of a first page of the site on the computing device of the receiving user (claim 6, 26); loading of a second page on the computing device of the receiving user (claim 6, 26); one or more other computing devices of other receiving users (claim 8, 28); computing device of sharing user (claim 9, 28); web browser executing on the computing device of the receiving user (claim 10, 11, 29); search engine executing on the computing device of the receiving user (claim 10, 29); graphical user interface (claim 1, 21, 29); a memory storing instructions (claim 21); one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform operations (claim 21).
The server side system, plurality of first computing devices, second computing device of a receiving user, querying device, another computing device of the receiving user, one or more other computing devices of other receiving users, computing device of a sharing user, a memory storing instructions, and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform operations are recited at a high level of generality and merely act to “apply it” (the abstract idea) using generic computing devices (paragraph [0044]). The devices are merely used to process data (detecting, determining, generating, prioritizing, monitoring, accessing, parsing) and sending and receiving data (providing, receiving). Further, the computing devices merely represent the parties involved. Nothing in the claims improves upon computers themselves, computer technology, or a technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The site, links associated with URL’s, loading of first and second page of the site, web browser executing on the computing device of the receiving user, search engine executing on the computing device of the receiving user, and graphical user interface merely provide a general link to practicing the abstract idea in a particular technological environment (i.e. online/on a computer). The sites and links merely act as the environment in which the prioritization of the multiple referrals occurs. Further, the use of URL’s merely provides the address to access the content is in an online environment. The web browser and search engine merely act as the environment in which the referrals are accessed. The graphical user interface is a generic interface for displaying. Nothing in the claims improves upon websites, links, browsers, search engines, or graphical user interfaces (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The machine learning system is recited at a high level of generality. Nothing in the claims improves upon machine leaning itself, machine learning technology, or a technical field. As a result, it does not go beyond the “apply it” level of implementation (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly, as above with regard to practical application, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept as they merely provide generic computing components used as a tool to implement the abstract idea or provide a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. online).
As a result, the claims are not patent eligible.
With regard to prior art:
The examiner was unable to find a reasonable combination of references, in the context of the claimed invention, to teach “wherein the prioritization mechanism prioritizes sharing users based on inclusion of a sharing-user-specific code in a shared link” and “the notification including at least one shared link from the plurality of shared links that is associated with a highest priority sharing user based on the inclusion of the sharing-user-specific code.”
Wang et al (US 2020/0051114) is considered the closest prior art. Wang teaches receiving multiple coupons that can be the same coupon or different coupons and prioritizing referral coupons to users based on various criteria. Additionally, the use of the referral coupons is tracked and when a certain number had been redeemed the coupons were considered exhausted and are no longer valid. Lee (Us 2009/0234730) teaches providing referring users with rewards based on the coupons being used by the receiving users. The referral link includes a code to track the user that shared the referral. Coker et al (US 2021/0118032) teaches tracking validity status for referral coupons that includes tracking codes.
Cleaver et al (US 8,812,527) teaches removing coupon links from an interface that have exhausted their usage limit. Isaacs et al (US 2014/0317215) teaches prioritizing based on reciprocal relationships. Jia et al (US 2017/0032450) teaches prioritizing coupons that are referred to the user by friend over coupons from people who are not considered friends.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has considered but does not find persuasive applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC 101. With regard to applicant’s arguments regarding 35 USC 101 the examine respectfully disagrees. The inclusion of high level, generic computing devices does not improve technology or a technical field. Further, nothing in the claims improves database management. The claims merely store and track data for the particular data chosen for the invention. Nothing improves the way a database stores or recalls information. The tracking of referral codes is part of the abstract idea and is not even considered an additional element. As a result, such rejections have been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC 103 are found persuasive. As a result, such rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER STROUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 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, Waseem Ashraff can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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.
CHRISTOPHER STROUD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621B
/CHRISTOPHER STROUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621