Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 12/8/2025, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 3-19 are pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: personalization engine configured to, execution module configured to, geofencing engine configured to, synchronization engine configured to, manager configured to, API gateway configured to, engagement tracking module configured to, analytics sub-system, reallocation sub-system, bid optimization sub-system, framework configured to, ledger configured to, pricing module configured to, escrow system configured to, in claims 3-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof – i.e. the claimed elements above represent generic computing elements.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3-19 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.
Claim 3 is directed towards a system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 3 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction, including advertising activities/behaviors, business relations, sales activities, which represents a method of organizing human activity and has been identified as an abstract ideas – see MPEP § 2106. The relevant claimed limitations include:
allow businesses to register, manage and distribute localized offers for the purchase of at least one of goods and services/ register consumers and to dynamically match offers to localized consumers to the registered consumers based on at least one of geolocation, browsing history, and purchasing patterns /
enable direct merchant-to-consumer purchases / restrict offer visibility and eligibility based on proximity and movement patterns of the registered consumers.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 3 includes the additional elements of a personalization engine / transaction execution module / geofencing engine, which represent generic computing elements. The additional element of real-time processing does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element of a decentralized computing infrastructure does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional element of real-time processing does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element of a decentralized computing infrastructure does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 3 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Remaining dependent claims 4-19 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further recite the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP:
determine a geofenced zone for the offer, wherein the geofenced zone is related to the offer location / associate the geofenced zone with a time period for purchasing the offer / the geofenced zone includes a buy zone and a view zone, and at least one of the buy zone and the view zone automatically shrink in size as an end of the time period approaches / determine a plurality of the geofenced zones for the offer, wherein the plurality of geofenced zones are related to the offer location and have different sizes / associate, for each of the plurality of geofenced zones, a time period for purchasing the offer, wherein the time period is different for each of the plurality of geofenced zones. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind (or using pen/paper) but for the recitation of generic computing elements- see below, thus still being in the mental process category. The claims further recite the additional elements of: a synchronization engine / pricing and availability manager / API gateway / tracking module / analytics sub system / ad-spend reallocation sub system / bid optimization sub-system and various sub-systems / transaction framework / dynamic pricing module / client device / consumer devices , which represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Using a distributed ledger to record data ( see claim 9 ) / Using a peer to peer escrow system / Using a blockchain based ledger (see claim 19) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/ field of use. Using payments methods including digital wallets and blockchain transactions does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/ field of use. Using AI to determine data (see claim 15) / using AI (see claim 16, 17, 18) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/ field of use. Adjusting data in real time ( see claim 8, 9) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 3-19 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 3-19 recite the claimed limitations of: a decentralized computing infrastructure, to register” consumers (the Spec. describes the concept of a consumer, yet it does not teach registering consumers), “proximity and movement patterns of the registered consumers” (the Spec. describes estimating the proximity and movement pattern of a user; it does not describe the process of “registering” consumers, and thus it does not teach the concept of determining the proximity and movement pattern of a “registered” consumer), a distributed ledger configured to record at least one of transactions, offer modifications and redemptions / a peer to peer escrow system that stores payments and controls release of funds , using decentralized audit logs, payment methods including digital wallets and blockchain transactions, using AI to dynamically adjust geofencing parameters, AI- driven subsystems (see claims 16, 17, 18) , using a blockchain based ledger, real-time foot traffic (the Spec. describes determining whether a person is walking, and traffic as it relates to vehicles, but it does not disclose determining real-time foot traffic), competitor activity and adjusting geofencing parameters based on real-time foot traffic and competitor activity , ensure consistent pricing /availability/ offer details across all integrated platforms. The features above were 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. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3-4 , 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Schwartz (20210201404).
As per Claim 3, Schwartz discloses:
a decentralized computing infrastructure, including one or more hardware processors, configured by machine-readable instructions to allow businesses to register, manage, and distribute localized offers for the purchase of at least one of goods and services in real-time; (the processor/processors represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. at least- abstract, para 25-26: manage, register, distribute offers for at least one of goods or services in real time; decentralized computing infrastructure- at least para 47)
a personalization engine configured to register consumers and to dynamically match the localized offers to the registered consumers based on at least one of geolocation, browsing history, and purchasing patterns; (the engine represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. at least para 34, 39, 105 – AI powered engine to dynamically match offers to consumers; based on location/browsing history/purchasing patterns- at least: para 47, 61, 72 – browsing data; para 48, 76 – shopping data and spending patterns; registering consumers and matching offers to the consumers – at least para 49, 38, 46 – “may register for an account with the real-time offers platform 202.”)
a transaction execution module configured to enable direct merchant-to- consumer purchases; (the module represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least para 104, 105 – processor [module] that performs the claimed limitations.)
and a geofencing engine configured to restrict offer visibility and eligibility based on proximity and movement patterns of the registered consumers. (the module represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 104, 105 – processors [engine] that performs the claimed limitations; user’s geolocation is used to restrict offer visibility/eligibility – at least para 41, 61; registered consumers- at least para 49, 46)
As per Claim 4, Schwartz discloses:
Configured to enable direct merchant-to-consumer purchases through various payment methods. (at least: para 37, 47)
As per Claim 14, Schwartz discloses:
The various payment methods include at least one of fiat currency, digital wallets, and blockchain transactions. (at least para 37, 47)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-7, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Schwartz (20210201404) in further view of Agrawal (20050131759).
As per Claim 6, Schwartz teaches:
a multi-platform synchronization engine configured to update offers in real-time across at least one of …e-commerce platform; (the engine represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: abstract, real time offers platform [e-commerce platform]- at least para 35, 38)
an API gateway configured to enable external platforms to access real-time system offers and orders; (the gateway represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. Schwartz: At least fig1 and associated/related text – icons 104, 108; at least para 36 – interface to communicate with other applications/platforms , including API interface - at least para 72, 75)
an engagement tracking module configured to analyze performance metrics across all distribution channels and optimize offer visibility. (the module represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. Schwartz: At least: para 7, 153 – computing processors [module]; at least para 55 – analytics (offer analytics) )
Agrawal further teaches:
a cross-channel pricing and availability manager, configured to provide at least one of consistent pricing, availability, and offer details across integrated platforms (the manager represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least para 53, 54- processor [manager]; at least para 3 - consistent pricing across all integrated platforms; integrating offer data across channels – at least para 3; at least para 62: “ Various alterations and modifications can be made to the techniques and arrangements described herein, as would be apparent to one skilled in the relevant art” – [integrating offer data/details across integrated platforms includes availability data])
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Schwartz’s existing features, with Agrawal’s feature of a cross-channel pricing and availability manager, configured to ensure consistent pricing, availability, and offer details across all integrated platforms , since as merchants make more and more channels available to the consumer, uniform personalization and targeting across channels utilizing customer behavior on all channels becomes very important – Agrawal, para 9. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the 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.
As per Claim 7, Schwartz in view of Agrawal teach:
external platforms include at least one of NextDoor, Google, Yelp, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and POS systems. (Schwartz, at least para 36: external platforms include Google, Facebook, POS system)
As per Claim 16, Schwartz in view of Agrawal teach:
The engagement tracking module is an AI-driven engagement tracking module. (Schwartz teaches the module, as noted above, and it teaches the remaining limitations: at least para 34, 41)
Claims 8, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Schwartz (20210201404) in further view of Agrawal (20050131759), in even further view of Flake (20080103953).
As per Claim 8, Flake teaches:
an analytics sub-system configured to continuously monitor offer and order performance across all connected channels; (the subsystem represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations . at least para 74 – using AI to analyze/determine data; at least para 50)
an automated ad-spend reallocation sub-system, configured to dynamically shift marketing budgets toward higher-performing platforms based on real-time engagement metrics; (the subsystem represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. at least: para 8, 28, 50)
a bid optimization sub-system configured to adjust advertising bids in real-time to maximize return on investment on promotional spend. (the subsystem represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. at least para 74- using AI to analyze/determine data; (at least claim 1, claim 2)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Schwartz’s existing features, combined with Agrawal’s existing features, with Flake’s feature of an analytics sub-system configured to continuously monitor offer and order performance across all connected channels; an automated ad-spend reallocation sub-system, configured to dynamically shift marketing budgets toward higher-performing platforms based on real-time engagement metrics; a bid optimization sub-system configured to adjust advertising bids in real-time to maximize return on investment on promotional spend , to optimize advertising expenditure for advertising transactions across the different networks – Flake, abstract.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the 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.
As per Claim 17, Flake in view of Agrawal in further view of Flake teach:
the analytics sub-system is an Al- driven analytics sub-system. (Flake teaches the analytics sub system , as noted above, and it teaches the remaining limitations, at least para 74)
As per Claim 18, Flake in view of Agrawal in further view of Flake teach:
the bid optimization sub-system is an Al-driven bid optimization sub-system. (Flake teaches the bid optimization sub system , as noted above, and it teaches the remaining limitations, at least para 74)
Claims 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Schwartz (20210201404) in further view of Agrawal (20050131759), in even further view of An Hyo (KR 20190123054 A) in even further view of McLaughlin (20120324542 ).
As per Claim 9, An Hyo teaches:
A distributed ledger configured to record at least one of transactions ; a peer-to-peer escrow system , configured to store payments and control release of funds. (at least: page 5/9 – transaction data stored in the distributed ledger; page5/9, last 3 paras – peer to peer escrow system that stored payments and controls release of funds)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Schwartz’s existing features, combined with Agrawal’s existing features, with An Hyo’s feature of a distributed ledger configured to record at least one of transactions ; a peer-to-peer escrow system , configured to store payments and control release of funds, to provide a funding service based on blockchain and p2p escrow – An Hyo, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the 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.
McLaughlin further teaches:
a merchant-controlled dynamic pricing module configured to allow businesses to adjust pricing in real-time based on demand and user engagement; (the module represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 144)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Schwartz’s existing features, combined with Agrawal’s existing features, combined with An Hyo’s existing features, with McLauglin’s feature of a merchant-controlled dynamic pricing module configured to allow businesses to adjust pricing in real-time based on demand and user engagement, to dynamically price goods/services – McLaughlin, abstract and para 51. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the 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.
Schwartz in view of Agrawal in further view of An Hyo in further view of McLaughlin further teach:
a contract-driven transaction framework configured to enforce at least one of offer terms, redemption conditions, and payment settlements (the framework represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. Schwartz, at least: para 52, 94, 95)
As per Claim 19, Schwartz in view of Agrawal in further view of An Hyo in further view of McLaughlin further teach:
The distributed ledger is a blockchain-based ledger. (An Hyo, at least: abstract)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Schwartz (20210201404) in further view of Agrawal (20050131759), in even further view of Carlson (20130191198).
As per Claim 11, Carlson teaches:
Receive, from an offer manager client device, information related to the offer; Determine a geofenced zone for the offer, wherein the geofenced zone is related to the offer location; (the device represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 306-307, 540 and fig 23 and associated/related text- manager client device)
Associate the geofenced zone with a time period for purchasing the offer; (at least: abstract)
Receive geolocation information from one or more consumer devices; Enter the geolocation information and the information related to the offer for the geofenced zone into one or more data structures; (at least: para 311; the device represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations- at least: para 311 [mobile device])
Periodically refresh the one or more data structures when determining that the geofenced zone contains a consumer device within the associated time period for the geofenced zone; Transmit, to the consumer device, the offer corresponding with the geofenced zone; (at least: para 319, 320; at least para 126)
In response to receiving, from the consumer device, an acceptance that satisfies one or more conditions of the offer, initiate a transaction for the consumer device to purchase the offer. (at least: para 126)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Schwartz’s existing features, combined with Agrawal’s existing features, with Carlson’s features of Receive, from an offer manager client device, information related to the offer; Determine a geofenced zone for the offer, wherein the geofenced zone is related to the offer location; Associate the geofenced zone with a time period for purchasing the offer; Receive geolocation information from one or more consumer devices; Enter the geolocation information and the information related to the offer for the geofenced zone into one or more data structures; Periodically refresh the one or more data structures when determining that the geofenced zone contains a consumer device within the associated time period for the geofenced zone; Transmit, to the consumer device, the offer corresponding with the geofenced zone; In response to receiving, from the consumer device, an acceptance that satisfies one or more conditions of the offer, initiate a transaction for the consumer device to purchase the offer, to redeem offers based on geographical positions of devices – Carlson, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Schwartz (20210201404) in further view of Agrawal (20050131759), in further view of Carlson (20130191198), in further view of Evje (20170228785).
As per Claim 13, Evje teaches:
determine a plurality of the geofenced zones for the offer, wherein the plurality of geofenced zones are related to the offer location and have different sizes; associate, for each of the plurality of geofenced zones, a time period for purchasing the offer, wherein the time period is different for each of the plurality of geofenced zones; (at least fig2A and associated/related text – icon 203; at least para 28 – offers are associated with an expiration time- at least para 29)
enter the geolocation information and the information related to the offer for each of the plurality of geofenced zones into one or more data structures; (at least para 16, 20-21)
periodically refresh the one or more data structures when determining at least one geofenced zone among the plurality of geofenced zones that contains a consumer device within the time period for the associated geofenced zone; and transmit, to the consumer device, the offer corresponding with the at least one geofenced zone. (at least: para 8- tracking users’ location; para 37, 7)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Schwartz’s existing features, combined with Agrawal’s existing features, combined with Carlson’s existing features, with Evje’s features of determine a plurality of the geofenced zones for the offer, wherein the plurality of geofenced zones are related to the offer location and have different sizes; associate, for each of the plurality of geofenced zones, a time period for purchasing the offer, wherein the time period is different for each of the plurality of geofenced zones; enter the geolocation information and the information related to the offer for each of the plurality of geofenced zones into one or more data structures; periodically refresh the one or more data structures when determining at least one geofenced zone among the plurality of geofenced zones that contains a consumer device within the time period for the associated geofenced zone; and transmit, to the consumer device, the offer corresponding with the at least one geofenced zone, to send targeted content to users based on the user mobile device location via the use of geo-fencing – Evje, abstract and para 7. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the 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.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 5, 10, 12, 15. When taken as a whole, pending claims 5, 10, 12, 15 are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
In contrast, Schwartz et al. disclose systems and techniques for dynamically providing real-time offers in which user eligibility for one or more offers can be determined based on a plurality of dynamic user attributes associated with the user and one or more data sets corresponding to similarly situated users. An input can be received corresponding to an acceptance by the user of at least one offer selected from the one or more offers. In response to receiving the input, an updated plurality of the dynamic user attributes can be retrieved, wherein the dynamic user attributes are constantly updated in real time based on user activity. Based on the updated plurality of dynamic user attributes and the one or more data sets corresponding to the similarly situated user, it can be determined whether the user remains eligible for the at least one offer. An offer confirmation can be sent upon confirming eligibility. Abstract. Schwartz et al. offers are limited to offers for loans and consumer credit, and are not offers for the purchase of goods and/or services in real-time, as recited in claim 3. Paragraphs [0002] — [0004]. The real-time offers application on device 104 can provide data relating to the user to the real-time offers platform 102 that can be used as inputs to a machine learning model or artificial intelligence algorithm that is configured to develop real-time offers. For instance, real-time offers platform 102 can receive inputs from the real-time offers application relating to a user's preferences for different goods, vendors, stores, restaurants, activities, locations, etc. Device 104 can obtain this information based on a user's interaction with device applications, web surfing history, social media, geolocation, etc. In one example, a user may grant real-time offers application access to device location information (e.g., GPS coordinates) which can be used to track places the user visits to further derive user preferences. Paragraph [0041]. Schwartz et al. do not disclose or suggest that offer visibility and eligibility are restricted based on proximity and movement patterns of the registered consumers, as recited in claim 3. Artificial intelligence module 302 can utilize all or part of user attributes 304, other user data sets 306, and purchase attributes 308 to determine a real-time offer having offer attributes 310. For example, real-time offers platform 300 may detect that a user is browsing for jewelry items online and has also visited a Pandora™ store in the mall (e.¢., via location data obtained by an application on a user device). Based on this activity and additional user attributes (e.g., income and bank account balance), real-time offers platform 300 may use artificial intelligence module 302 to derive an offer for a credit limit of $1,000 at 10% interest to be paid in a 12-month period that can be used in a jewelry store. Paragraph [0061]. Thus, Schwartz et al. offers are limited to offers for loans and consumer credit, and are not offers for the purchase of goods and/or services in real-time, as recited in claim 3. Further, location data is used by Schwartz et al. to formulate a loan offer, but not to restrict purchase offer visibility and eligibility based on proximity and movement patterns of registered consumers, as recited in claim 3. In Paragraphs [0104] and [0105], Schwartz et al. describe computer architecture that could be configured to perform any number of processes. However, Schwartz et al. do not disclose or suggest that this computer architecture is configured to provide offers for the purchase of goods and/or services in real-time, or to restrict purchase offer visibility and eligibility based on proximity and movement patterns of registered consumers, as recited in claim 3. Because at least these elements of claim 3 are not disclosed or suggested by Schwartz et al., Schwartz et al. does not anticipate the invention as recited in claim 3. Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and therefore also is not anticipated by Schwartz et al. The rejection of claims 3 and 4, therefore, should be withdrawn. Agrawal et al. disclose a method of targeting customers across multiple channels in which a customer request is received, and the channel type upon which it was made is identified. The customer making the request is also identified. A record of customer activity is available, and from this, a set of beliefs for the customer for the current channel is formed. The beliefs map to profile attributes. The beliefs are merged to form an integrated profile Ge. for the same customer across all channels), and on this basis a customer targeting promotion is generated. The promotion is added to the response to the specific customer request and together these are sent to the customer. Abstract. As noted by the examiner, Agrawal et al., in Paragraph [0003], acknowledge that some merchants “offer a degree of integration by means of data replication across various channel systems, but not more than this. Often, that can result in different prices on different channels. Where merchants do offer the same prices on different channels, more often than not this is due to significant ‘manual’ effort, rather than automatic consistency across the channels.” Thus, Agrawal et al. has acknowledged an issue in the prior art, but do not seem to disclose the solution recited in the claims, and the examiner has not identified any such disclosure. The examiner also noted disclosure of computer architecture and a catch-all paragraph in which additional scope is asserted but not disclosed, but again nothing that so much as suggests the claimed feature. Further, Agrawal et al. do not overcome the deficiency noted above with respect to Schwartz et al. That is, like Schwartz et al., Agrawal et al. also do not disclose or suggest that this computer architecture is configured to provide offers for the purchase of goods and/or services in real-time, or to restrict purchase offer visibility and eligibility based on proximity and movement patterns of registered consumers, as recited in the claims. Because at least these claimed features are not disclosed or suggested by any of the cited references, no combination of the teachings of the cited references could render obvious the claimed invention. Th rejection of claims 6 and 7, therefore, should be withdrawn. Flake et al. do not overcome the deficiency noted above with respect to Schwartz et al. and Agrawal et al. That is, like Schwartz et al. and Agrawal et al., Flake et al. also do not disclose or suggest that this computer architecture is configured to provide offers for the purchase of goods and/or services in real-time, or to restrict purchase offer visibility and eligibility based on proximity and movement patterns of registered consumers, as recited in the claims. Because at least these claimed features are not disclosed or suggested by any of the cited references, no combination of the teachings of the cited references could render obvious the claimed invention. Th rejection of claim &, therefore, should be withdrawn. The examiner acknowledged that the prior art of record does not teach either singly or in combination the limitations of claims 5, 9, and 10. His submitted that amended claims 5, 9, and 10 are allowable. New claims 11-19 are added to recite additional features of the invention. Based on the foregoing, it is submitted that all objections and rejections have been overcome. Itis therefore requested that the Amendment be entered, the claims allowed, and the case passed to issue.
Pending claim is taught by Schwartz in view of Agrawal , as noted above.
Claims 3-4 , 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Schwartz (20210201404).
As per Claim 3, Schwartz discloses:
a decentralized computing infrastructure, including one or more hardware processors, configured by machine-readable instructions to allow businesses to register, manage, and distribute localized offers for the purchase of at least one of goods and services in real-time; (the processor/processors represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. at least- abstract, para 25-26: manage, register, distribute offers for at least one of goods and services in real time; decentralized computing infrastructure- at least para 47)
a personalization engine configured to register consumers and to dynamically match the localized offers to the registered consumers based on at least one of geolocation, browsing history, and purchasing patterns; (the engine represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. at least para 34, 39, 105 – AI powered engine to dynamically match offers to consumers; based on location/browsing history/purchasing patterns- at least: para 47, 61, 72 – browsing data; para 48, 76 – shopping data and spending patterns; registering consumers and matching offers to the consumers – at least para 49, 38, 46 – “may register for an account with the real-time offers platform 202.”)
a transaction execution module configured to enable direct merchant-to- consumer purchases; (the module represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least para 104, 105 – processor [module] that performs the claimed limitations.)
and a geofencing engine configured to restrict offer visibility and eligibility based on proximity and movement patterns of the registered consumers. (the module represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 104, 105 – processors [engine] that performs the claimed limitations; user’s geolocation is used to restrict offer visibility/eligibility – at least para 41, 61; registered consumers- at least para 49, 46)
As per Claim 4, Schwartz discloses:
Configured to enable direct merchant-to-consumer purchases through various payment methods. (at least: para 37, 47)
As per Claim 14, Schwartz discloses:
The various payment methods include at least one of fiat currency, digital wallets, and blockchain transactions. (at least para 37, 47)
See office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis. The remaining arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of 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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
12/17/2025