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
Claims 1-31 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. On 9/17/25, Applicant amended the independent claims. Applicant’s remarks address these features. See the added citations and explanation in the rejection below that demonstrate the actually claimed hardware and network structure.
Also, the 101 is still found to apply. The additional elements are considered generic. See the 101 rejection 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.
Independent Claims 1, 16, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are in a statutory category of invention. However, the claims recite, the application service configured to: obtain, data defining an offer, the data indicating one or more application features corresponding to the application service, each application feature of the one or more application features having feature enablement criteria corresponding to the application feature, receive, a selection of an application feature of the one or more application features, , receive, a first indicator indicating that the feature enablement criteria has been satisfied, and in response to receipt of the first indicator, provide a second indicator indicating that the selected application feature is enabled. This is considered in the Abstract Idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity - advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The additional elements are considered one or more processors; an application service executed by the one or more processors, retailer server, a first client application via a communications network, the first client application executing on a first client device, a communications network, a client application remote from an application service and retailer server. These are considered generic. The generically recited computer elements do not add a practical application or meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations only perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Also, the additional hardware elements are: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions. Viewed separately or as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim does not provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea, in that there is no improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of a computer, no application with, or by use of a particular machine, no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, no specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routing and conventional in the field, no unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-15, 17-28, 30, 31 are not considered directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. The API, GUI, feature turn on in the GUI, are considered generic as specific details are not provided. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful description for the claimed invention, these elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not more than the abstract concepts identified in the claimed invention. Hence, these dependent claims are also rejected under 101.
Please see the 35 USC 101 section at the Examination Guidance and Training Materials page on the USPTO website.
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 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-20, 22-24, 26, 27, 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carlisle (20180349485).
Claims 1, 16, 29. Examiner notes that Applicant Spec describes some enablement features and also criteria here [27]. Carlisle discloses an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and an application service executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 1, 2), the application service configured to:
obtain, via a communications network from a retailer server remote from the application service (Fig. 1 shows network; the API/application is located on the client and interacts with a server [33] and interacts with multiple different severs [27, 28] and external websites [27, 464] and third party web platforms [36] and access to outside businesses [77] and links to businesses like gyms [79] and providing business/company websites [158]; so the platform 110 in Fig. 1 interacts with both the user/client system 130 and also external/retailer systems 140; in further regards to Fig. 1, the platform at item 110 and [27] reads on claimed application service, the user system of Fig. 1 at item 130 and [33] reads on claimed client application/API, and the external systems of Fig. 1 at item 130 and [27, 28, 402, 464] reads on the claimed retailer server ), data defining an offer, the data indicating one or more application features corresponding to the application service, each application feature of the one or more application features having feature enablement criteria corresponding to the application feature (see [434] and reward tokens for unlocking “[434]…may unlock features within the application by earning reward tokens to advance to a new tier…“ and see Rewards for activities [85] and see that the activity can be shopping in [35, 493]; also see the different businesses and companies the rewards can be associated with at Fig. 3a; also see servers at Fig. 1; so as interpreted in light of Applicant Spec at [27], Carlisle discloses the enablement criteria of activities like shopping that open the features of rewards that also unlock further features; “[85]… rewards may be determined by the user's growth in awareness, completion of specific content or activities “; also see [94] where rewards are provided for user opting in [94, 339] and also providing rewards for completing an offer [418], and also verifying performance of an agreement [372] and verifying purchase/payment of a good and also the use of reward tokens [402] “[456]… For example, the data structure may group allocated tokens into rewards tiers, and one or more functions of the application may prevent or restrict access, based on whether a user has achieved a necessary rewards tier.”; alerts/notifications for “recognition of the user” and “rewards” at [203]),
receive, via the communications network from a first client application executable remotely from the application service and the retailer server (the API/application is located on the client and interacts with a server [33]; Fig. 1 shows network; the API/application is located on the client and interacts with a server [33] and interacts with multiple different severs [27, 28] and external websites [27] and third party web platforms [36] and access to outside businesses [77] and links to businesses like gyms [79] and providing business/company websites [158]; so the platform 110 in Fig. 1 interacts with both the user/client system 130 and also external/retailer systems 140; in further regards to Fig. 1, the platform at item 110 and [27] reads on claimed application service, the user system of Fig. 1 at item 130 and [33] reads on claimed client application/API, and the external systems of Fig. 1 at item 130 and [27, 28, 402, 464] reads on the claimed retailer server), a selection of an application feature of the one or more application features, the first client application executing on a first client device (see [434] and reward tokens for unlocking “[434]…may unlock features within the application by earning reward tokens to advance to a new tier… “, see examples of app features unlocked at [434, 435]; see client device at Fig. 1; see [94] where user selects the rewards),
receive, via the communications network from the retailer server (Fig. 1 shows network; the API/application is located on the client and interacts with a server [33] and interacts with multiple different severs [27, 28] and external websites [27] and third party web platforms [36] and access to outside businesses [77] and links to businesses like gyms [79] and providing business/company websites [158]; so the platform 110 in Fig. 1 interacts with both the user/client system 130 and also external/retailer systems 140; and the retailer/business that provides the rewards confirms that the purchase/criteria/etc happens before providing the reward/feature), a first indicator indicating that the feature enablement criteria has been satisfied (see tiers and rewards and tokens at [434]; note shopping at [35] and different retailers/companies at Fig. 3a and Fig. 1; see [94] where the user is opted in and then is provided the rewards), and
in response to receipt of the first indicator, provide, via the communications network to the first client application (Fig. 1 shows network; the API/application is located on the client and interacts with a server [33] and interacts with multiple different severs [27, 28] and external websites [27] and third party web platforms [36] and access to outside businesses [77] and links to businesses like gyms [79] and providing business/company websites [158]; so the platform 110 in Fig. 1 interacts with both the user/client system 130 and also external/retailer systems 140), a second indicator indicating that the selected application feature is enabled (see [434] and reward tokens for unlocking “[434]…may unlock features within the application by earning reward tokens to advance to a new tier… “, see examples of app features unlocked at [434, 435] and the indicator is interpreted as the “new” features now available in [434, 435]; see [94] where rewards are provided for optin after opt in is determined).
Claim 2, 18. Carlisle further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first client application comprises a mobile gaming application (Fig. 9a, [20], and games at [35]).
Claim 3, 19. Carlisle further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein to receive the first indicator indicating that the feature enablement criteria has been satisfied comprises to receive the first indicator from the retailer server or a retailer mobile application (see shopping at [35] and see shopping/purchase at [494] and servers at Fig. 1).
Claim 4, 17. Carlisle further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein to receive the selection of the application feature comprises to receive a selection of the offer ([434, 435] where the reward tokens for the activity activate the new tier with new enablement features of the app).
Claim 5, 20. Carlisle further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the data defining the offer further includes one or more of user qualification criteria, one or more offer items, or one or more offer locations (see shopping as activity at [35] where the qualification is shopping).
Claim 7, 22, 30. Carlisle further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the application service is further configured to: in response to receipt of the selection of the application feature, provide to a second client application via the communications network, selected application feature data, the second client application executing on a second client device, the selected application feature data including one or more of a first identifier identifying the selected application feature, a third indicator indicating the feature enablement criteria corresponding to the selected application feature, a second identifier identifying the first client application, or a third identifier identifying the first client device (see [434, 435] with enabled activity and the first client device can now access other client devices; Fig. 1 shows the multiple connected devices).
Claim 8, 23, 31. Carlisle further discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the application service is further configured to receive, from the second client application via the communications network, a fourth indicator indicating permission to participate in the offer ([434] shows access to new people as enablement feature reward, and [385] shows that these new features, like access to a new person, needs to be “accepted” or reciprocated [385]; see friend at 314c of Fig. 3d; also Fig. 6 shows responding to sender who has new access via the enablement feature of [434]).
Claim 9, 24. Carlisle further discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the application service is further configured to provide, to the first client application, a fifth indicator indicating that the fourth indicator indicating permission to participate in the offer has been received by the application service (see Fig. 6 with Response received and provide response to sender).
Claim 11, 27. Carlisle further discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the second client application comprises a mobile retailer application (see app and shopping at [35]).
Claim 12, 26. Carlisle further discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the first client device and the second client device are the same device (see multiple apps or app modules on the same device at [35]).
Claim 13. Carlisle further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the application service includes a first client application program interface (API) configured to receive the data defining the offer (see use of APIs at [33, 36]).
Claim 15. Carlisle further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the application service includes a second API configured to receive the first indicator (note multiple APIs for each of the app modules at [36]).
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, 10, 14, 21, 25, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlisle (20180349485.
Claim 6, 21. Carlisle does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the feature enablement criteria comprises one or more of a purchase amount, a purchase of at least one of the one or more offer items, or an indication that the first client device is located in proximity to at least one of the one or more offer locations. However, Carlisle discloses a wide range of activities including shopping [35] and also purchasing [493] and notifications for being proximate to a particular retailer [206]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Carlisle’s activities being proximate to a retailer to Carlisle’s rewarding various activities related to shopping. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better reward particular activities.
Claim 10, 25. Carlisle does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the feature enablement criteria comprises an indication that the second client device is located in proximity to a location indicated in the data defining the offer. However, Carlisle discloses a wide range of incited activities [35] and also recognition by friends [84] and rewards for referrals [85, 433] and location of friends [94] and friends within vicinity of user or specified location [103] and notification for proximity to a particular retailer [206] and notification when a second user approaches something of interest to first user [206] and increasing number of referrals to a company [336]. Hence, it is obvious that Carlisle can reward users for increasing referrals to a company by a user’s friend being proximate to a company. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Carlisle’s user being proximate to a company to and Carlisle’s tracking friends location to Carlisle’s rewarding a first user for referral to a second user. One would have been motivated to do this in order better reward a first user for a second user referral that is relevant to a company/business.
Claim 14, 28. Carlisle does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the application service is configured to provide, to the first client application, program code to modify a user interface (UI) of the first client application to display one or more graphical elements corresponding to the one or more application features. However, Carlisle discloses the AI can modify the GUI [62], that the AI can modify the GUI can automatically add GUI links/interface features based on real-time activities or changes [78] and that rewards to the user can be access to new people [434]. Hence, a user can be rewarded with access to a new person and the AI would modify the GUI automatically to indicate and enable such. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Carlisle’s reward as access to new people to Carlisle’s AI automatically modifying the GUI with new capabilities. One would have been motivated to do this in order for the GUI to enable current/real-time actual capabilities.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a) these disclose rewards as enabling features in apps/applications: Lyons [76], Moore vendor reward program [0077] In order to create a live, fluid, opportunity; Mulherkar (23); Hall (36); Poole [58]; Ekambara [2].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTHUR DURAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5pm.
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, 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 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.
/ARTHUR DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 9/25/25