DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 23 January 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, 14-15, 17, and 21 have been amended.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 have been canceled.
Claims 22-24 are new and have been added.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-24 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-24 recite allowable subject matter and would be eligible if the claims were re-written or amended to overcome the 101 rejection in the Office Action below.
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, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-3, 5-7, and 22 are directed to a method, claims 8-10, 12-14, and 23 are directed to a system, and claims 15-17, 19-21, and 24 are directed to a product of manufacture (non-transitory computer-readable storage medium).
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of gifting a flexible gift object. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
receiving a gift request to associate a flexible gift object with a recipient, wherein the gifting request includes identifying information associated with the recipient, wherein the gifting request defines a gift object category, and wherein the flexible gift object includes a label;
dynamically associating the label with the identifying information associated with the recipient and the gift object category;
receiving an activation request to activate the flexible gift object, wherein the activation request includes the data, and wherein the data is extracted from the label;
processing the identifying information and the gift object category through an assignment recommendation to generate a set of assignment recommendations for the flexible gift object, wherein the assignment recommendation uses a dataset of sample recipient profiles and sample flexible gift objects associated with the sample recipient profiles;
updating a recipient display to present the set of assignment recommendations for the flexible gift object;
detecting a selection of an assignment option through the recipient, wherein the selection corresponds to a particular entity associated with the gift object category;
transmitting transaction processing data associated with the particular entity, wherein the transaction processing data includes a unique identifier corresponding to the label, and wherein the transaction processing data allows to process transactions involving the flexible gift object locally;
updating the dataset according to the selection, wherein the updated dataset is processed to update the assignment recommendation; and
monitoring new identifying information associated with the recipient through the updated assignment recommendation to generate new assignment recommendations for the flexible gift object.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of gifting a flexible gift object, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite the steps of receiving a gift request to associate a flexible gift object with a recipient, where the gifting request defines a gift object category and the flexible gift object has a label, receiving an activation request to activate the flexible gift object with the data included in the label, processing the data from the label to retrieve identifying information associated with the recipient and the gift object category, providing a set of assignment options that correspond to an entity associated with the gift object category, receiving a selection of an assignment option wherein the selection corresponds to a particular entity associated with the gift object, dynamically associating the data in the label with the particular entity, wherein when the data is dynamically associated with the particular entity, processing the identifying information and the gift object category to generate a set of assignment recommendations for the flexible gift object, wherein the assignment recommendation uses a dataset of sample recipient profiles and sample flexible gift objects associated with the sample recipient profiles, updating a recipient display to present the set of assignment recommendations for the flexible gift object, detecting a selection of an assignment option through the recipient, wherein the selection corresponds to a particular entity associated with the gift object category, transmitting transaction processing data associated with the particular entity that includes a unique identifier corresponding to the label, and wherein the transaction processing data allows to process transactions involving the flexible gift object locally, updating the dataset according to the selection, wherein the updated dataset is processed to update the assignment recommendation, and monitoring new identifying information associated with the recipient through the updated assignment recommendation to generate new assignment recommendations for the flexible gift object, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: a computer, a machine-readable label, data encoded in the machine learning label, the machine learning label, machine learning algorithm, machine learning algorithm is trained, interface, the interface, one or more systems, the machine learning label, machine learning algorithm, and the machine learning algorithm.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., gifting a flexible gift object) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of a computer, a machine-readable label, data encoded in the machine learning label, the machine learning label, machine learning algorithm, machine learning algorithm is trained, interface, the interface, one or more systems, the machine learning label, machine learning algorithm, and the machine learning algorithm, recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 8 includes the additional elements of one or more processors and memory storing thereon instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, and independent claim 15 includes the additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors of a computer system cause the computer system to. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the additional elements recited in claims 8 and 15, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 8 and 15 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 8 and 15 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 8 and 15, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claims 8 and 15 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, & 22, 9-10, 12-14, & 23, and 16-17, 19-21, & 24, depending from claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent representative claim 1 nor aid in eligibility to the independent claims 8 and 15. The claims of 2-3, 5-7, & 22, 9-10, 12-14, & 23, and 16-17, 19-21, & 24 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims includes the additional elements of machine-readable label is a Quick Response (QR) code (claims 2, 9, & 16), scanned using a computing device (claims 5, 6, 12, 13, & 19-20), machine-readable label being scanned through a point-of-sale terminal (claims 7, 14, & 21), one or more other systems (claims 22, 23, & 24). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, and 19-24 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims of 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, and 19-24 considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, & 22, 9-10, 12-14, & 23, and 16-17, 19-21, & 24 are ineligible.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Prior Art Considerations:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding the independent claims, the features are as follows:
transmitting transaction processing data to one or more systems associated with the particular entity, wherein the transaction processing data includes a unique identifier corresponding to the machine-readable label, and wherein the transaction processing data allows the one or more systems to process transactions involving the flexible gift object locally,
updating the dataset according to the selection, wherein the updated dataset is processed to update the assignment recommendation machine learning algorithm, and
monitoring new identifying information associated with the recipient through the updated assignment recommendation machine learning algorithm to generate new assignment recommendations for the flexible gift object.
The most apposite prior art of record includes Swanson, S. (PGP No. US 2019/0180271 A1), in view of Tu, H. (PGP No. US 2022/0383317 A1), and Priebatsch, et al. (Patent No. US 10,510,057 B2), to teach a method for virtual gift cards.
The reference of Swanson describes a method for virtual gift cards that be selected via a GUI to enable a user to provide the gift card to a specific recipient, where the gift card is customizable by providing the options to the user to select attributes, and can be specifically used at locations that are determined by the user (Swanson, paragraphs [0066]-[0068] & [0084, as well as FIG. 9). Further, the gift cards described in Swanson also have unique QR codes generated to extract data for the gift card and identify the validation, as well as track the monetary value associated with the gift card for the specific type, such as a category, and the data regarding a specific retailer if indicated (Swanson, paragraph [0078] and FIG. 15). Swanson describes that selections for gift cards to be used with specific merchants are made via the GUI, such as in FIG. 9, rendering how the user can scroll vertically through and select the intended gift card for a specific merchant or to be used at specific retailers (Swanson, paragraph [0067], [0073], & [0078] and FIGS. 9 & 15). Although Swanson describes virtual gift cards that a user can purchase and can select attributes associated with the gift card, such as a retailer that can accept that gift card associated, Swanson does not disclose the allowable features above. For example, Swanson does not specifically describe the transaction processing data allows the one or more systems to process transactions involving the flexible gift object locally, wherein the updated dataset is processed to update the assignment recommendation machine learning algorithm, and monitoring new identifying information associated with the recipient through the updated assignment recommendation machine learning algorithm to generate new assignment recommendations for the flexible gift object.
The reference of Tu is relied upon to teach features of a consumer redeeming an in-store gift card, where the system of Tu has a central cloud service that manages the consumer’s cards in a remote wallet, where the system further generates a dynamic QR code to be used during the transaction process, where the system encodes the QR in real-time (Tu, paragraph [0040]). Tu also describes that the gift card’s funds can automatically be applied (Tu, paragraph [0040]). Although Tu is relied upon to teach features of a remote wallet of a user that can store a gift card to use in-store, Tu does not describe any of the allowable features above. For example, Tu does not describe updating a dataset to update a recommendation machine learning algorithm, nor does Tu describe features related to identifying and monitoring information associated with the recipient through the updated machine learning algorithm to generate new assignment recommendations for a flexible gift object.
The reference of Priebatsch describes a method for transferring electronic funds, such as a gift card within a token based transaction system (Priebatsch, Col. 3, ln. 21-30). The reference also describes how the gift cards can be used to transfer a value of a transaction to a merchant’s point-of-sale device, where the associated stored token value is used to identify the merchant’s specific point-of-sale device by using a QR code reader or a scanner that is coupled to the device and the system then further recognizes a specific association of available card tokens (Priebatsch, see: Col. 28 & Claim 1). Although the method of Priebatsch includes transferring a specific amount from a gift card token system, to a specific merchant to use at a point-of-sale, Priebatsch does not specifically describe the transaction processing data allows the one or more systems to process transactions involving the flexible gift object locally, wherein the updated dataset is processed to update the assignment recommendation machine learning algorithm, and monitoring new identifying information associated with the recipient through the updated assignment recommendation machine learning algorithm to generate new assignment recommendations for the flexible gift object.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, the combination of features of independent claims, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims recite allowable subject matter, as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner notes that the non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled The Role of Gift Certificates and Gift Cards In Corporate Recognition and Incentive Programs, published on enterpriseengagement.org by Engagement Strategies media (2018), documented on PTO-892 form as reference U, and hereinafter referred to as ‘The Role’, describes. The reference describes explaining to online users how the gift certificate industry has grown significantly since 2003, with providing data of stats to demonstrate growth for businesses as well incentives for shoppers. Further, the website renders bullet points describing the applications of gift cards, research, historical information, attributes regarding gift cards, etc. Although ‘The Role’ describes such features, the reference does not disclose or teach the allowable features that are stated above, and does not remedy the deficiencies of the noted prior art.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 23 January 2026, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks found on page 10 regarding the eligibility of the claims as amended, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection. Even when considering the amendments to the claims, the claims are not eligible under the eligibility analysis for reasons stated in the rejection of the Office Action above.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103, the Applicant’s remarks filed on 23 January 2026 have been fully considered. In light of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claims now recite allowable subject as indicated in the Office Action above, and would be allowable if the claims are re-written or amended to overcome the 101 rejection, and thus the Examiner has withdrawn the 103 rejection.
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 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 ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights