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 Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 11/20/2025.
Claims 1, 11-12 have been amended.
Claims 13-20 have been added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 11/20/2025 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-12 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “ the claimed advance in database schema design and query optimization is analogous to the specific technical improvements found patent-eligible in Desjardins where See MPEP 2106.05(a) and Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (ARP Sept. 26, 2025). Desjardins decision is designated as precedential by the USPTO Director on November 4, 2025. As such, the reasoning is binding on all USPTO examiners and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reduced system complexity within a machine learning model was deemed sufficient to satisfy § 101 requirements. The present claims, similarly, provide for technical advancements in travel rewards systems by offering an optimized table design and flexible indexing that allow for high- performance querying and efficient data storage. The concrete, structural, and functional details of the claimed system are directed to how the computing portion of the rewards system works, thereby integrating the underlying concept (e.g., travel booking) into a practical technological application that is significantly more than an alleged abstract idea (page 8/10)”.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claims bear no similarity to the Desjardins decision, because the instant claim merely associating database with a scheme having a single table design implemented to perform certain action (s) in the manner in which it is received, whereas the claims in Desjardins decision reflected a specific improvement that addressed the technical problem of “catastrophic forgetting” in continual learning systems, while allowing artificial intelligence systems to variously optimize system performance, use less storage capacity and reduce system complexity The instant invention does nothing that could even be similar to the claims of Desjardins. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-12 rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant argues that “that no support is provided in the Office Action as to how the claimed systems and processes involving computer-implemented technical features are abstract (i.e., can be performed in the human mind). Particularly, the claimed subject matter is unrelated to human activity. The Office Action has failed to provide any reasonable support that the practical application of the claimed technology is similar to a simplistic mathematical problem that one can solve in his or her mind. The Office Action has also failed to provide any rational underpinnings as to how the claimed technology controls or manages human activity in any way. Unfortunately, the Office Action seems to have simply relied on conclusory statements without any logical support or meaningful analysis. Reliance on self-serving conclusory statements does not establish a prima facie case and does not shift the burden to the Application (page 8/10)”.
Examiner disagrees. The applicant's argument that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the steps of (the claimed systems and processes involving computer-implemented technical features are abstract (i.e., can be performed in the human mind)) and (provide any rational underpinnings as to how the claimed technology controls or manages human activity in any way) cannot be performed by a human being is not convincing. The only abstract idea bucket in which performance by a human is required is the "Mental Process" bucket which requires that the steps be capable of being performed in the human mind. The claims of the instant invention have not been identified as a "Mental Process". Instead the claims of the instant invention have been identified as "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". The Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines indicate that "advertising, marketing or sales related activities" is a subcategory of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". There is no requirement that these "advertising, marketing, or sales related activities" be performed by a human being. Therefore, all steps involved in the performance of advertising, marketing or sales related activities are part of the abstract idea itself irrespective of whether they are performed by a computer or performed by a human being. Thus, the applicant's arguments are moot. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-12 rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant argues that “ The claims as amended integrate the recited methodologies into a practical application by incorporating meaningful technical features and elements that provided enhancements and improvements to related conventional technologies, i.e., prior art systems that are inferior in processing speed, data storage management, and overall operational efficiencies as provided above. Accordingly, the Office is requested to withdraw the § 101 grounds of rejection (page 8/10)”.
Examiner disagrees. amended methodologies fails to integrate into practical application, because the booking database associated with a schema having a single table design implemented to construct a plurality of class properties and to leverage a primary key (PK) attribute and a sort key (SK) attribute to allow injection of class property values for data entities into a template to efficiently differentiate between the data entities in the single table design, wherein a first global secondary index (GSIl) and a second global entry index (GSI2) are provided to support multiple query options for accessing data stored in the booking database, fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements of the amended methodology is “database”, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-12 rejection under 35 USC § 101.
With regard to claims 1-12 rejection under 35 USC § 103:
Applicant argues that “ Greene, however, fails to teach or disclose any technological innovations referencing the technical features recited in the amended claims. For example, Greene is silent as to how a booking event is memorialized by way of storing a booking record in a booking database associated with a specifically designed schema. That is, there is no teaching about the utilization of a schema with a design (e.g., a single table format) implemented to construct a plurality of class properties. Further, Greene fails to teach or reasonably suggest utilizing a schema design that leverages multiple key attributes (e.g., a PK and an SK attribute) to allow injection of class property values for data entities into a template. Smith is silent about the use of the technical features related to the utilization of an efficient schema design or flexible indexing feature. neither of the cited references, either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the recited technical query features that result in technical advancements over the conventional travel reward technologies. For example, all the cited references are silent about secondary indexes (e.g., a first global index (GSIl) and a second global index (GSI2)) provided to support multiple query options for accessing data stored in the booking database. These technological enhancements allow the claimed computing system to achieve flexible querying using multiple global secondary indexes (GSIl and GSI2). These index features support multiple complex or non-primary query patterns and allow for fast search results from various data access perspectives. Accordingly, for at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejection of all independent claims under 35 U.S.C. §103. The dependent claims each depend either directly or indirectly on one of the independent claims. Thus, the dependent claims incorporate by reference all the features of their respective independent claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §112, 4. In view of the features as recited in the independent claims, and in view of the additional features as recited in the dependent claims, the dependent claims define patentable subject matter over the applied references for at least the reasons discussed above, and for their respective additional novel features. Thus, the pending dependent claims are also allowable (page 4/10)”.
Examiner disagrees. the amended underlined limitations of claims 1,for instance of “receiving an indication of a booking event completed by a user utilizing an application executed on a computing machine, the booking event being memorialized by way of storing a booking record in a booking database, the booking database associated with a schema having a single table design implemented to construct a plurality of class properties and to leverage a primary key (PK) attribute and a sort key (SK) attribute to allow injection of class property values for data entities into a template to efficiently differentiate between the data entities in the single table design, wherein a first global secondary index (GSIl) and a second global entry index (GSI2) are provided to support multiple query options for accessing data stored in the booking database,” are given no patentable weight because first, they are merely the description information that are included/contained/stored in the booking database, and they have not been used to achieve anything in the claim. Second, the actions that are recited in the mentioned underlined limitations (e.g., to leverage a primary key (PK) attribute and a sort key (SK) attribute to allow injection of class property values for data entities into a template to efficiently differentiate between the data entities in the table design, wherein a first global secondary index (GSIl) and a second global entry index (GSI2) are provided to support multiple query options for accessing data stored in the booking database) are provided to support multiple query options for accessing data stored in the booking database) are not positively recited in the claim. Also, the recitation. Same analysis is applied to claims 11-12,19-20 and therefore no prior art is required. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 USC § 103 over the cited prior art is maintained.
Examiner notes:
Claims 1 is a system claim. A system claim in may be equated to that of interconnected devices which is defined by its physical structural elements and corresponding functionality. It has been held that while features of apparatus may be recited either structurally or functional, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Same analysis is applied to claim 12.
Claim 11 is a method claim : the recitation of : the booking database associated with a schema having a table design implemented to construct a plurality of class properties and to leverage a primary key (PK) attribute and a sort key (SK) attribute to allow injection of class property values for data entities into a template to efficiently differentiate between the data entities in the table design, the booking event being associated with a user's balance, the user's balance being represented by a number of points divisible into a first points portion and a second points portion is not functional because it does not alter how the process steps are to be performed to achieve the utility of the invention
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below: Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1-10 are directed to a machine (i.e. a system); claim (s) 11,13-20 are directed to a process (i.e. a method); claim (s) 12 is directed to a manufacture (i.e. a computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable medium). The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of: “ receiving an indication of a booking event completed by a user, the booking event being memorialized by way of storing a booking record in a booking database, the booking database associated with a schema having a design implemented to construct a plurality of class properties and to leverage a primary key (PK) attribute and a sort key (SK) attribute to allow injection of class property values for data entities into a template to efficiently differentiate between the data entities, the booking event being associated with a user's balance, the user's balance being represented by a number of points divisible into a first points portion and a second points portion; generating one or more electronic tokens having a first value equal to a value of the first points portion, in response to a first threshold being met; storing the one or more electronic tokens in an electronic ledger associated with the user, wherein the user is authorized to utilize the one or more electronic tokens on an electronic exchange platform to obtain one or more items or services; and maintaining the second points portion as credit on the user's balance, wherein the user is not authorized to use the credit to obtain items or services of value ”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “ system, processor, application, computing machine, platform, database”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The recitation of :generating one or more electronic tokens and storing the one or more electronic tokens in an electronic ledger does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use.
More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes). When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “system, processor, application, computing machine, database ”, to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. “Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 92-98); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receiving an indication of a booking event completed by a user utilizing an application executed on a computing machine, the booking event being memorialized by way of storing a booking record in a booking database, the booking event being associated with a user's balance, the user's balance being represented by a number of points divisible into a first points portion and a second points portion;
storing the one or more electronic tokens in an electronic ledger associated with the user;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 11-12.
The dependent claims 2-3, 13-14 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), user interface of the computing machine is an additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No).
Dependent claims 4-10 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further recite the additional elements of using a electronic ledger on a blockchain platform, implementing a an mint non fungible token Ethereum smart contract to the electronic ledger (claims 5,7-9, 15-16), using cryptographic token (claim 6, 17), does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use.
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims 1, 11-12.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation of : wherein the schema design is a single table design, the method further comprising: displaying a first value associated with the first points portion in a first area of a user interface of the computing machine; displaying a second value associated with the second points portion in a second area of a user interface of the computing machine; and displaying a third value associated with the one or more electronic tokens in a third area of a user interface of the computing machine. It is unclear what the relationship between the schema design and displaying of displaying a first value associated with the first points portion in a first area of a user interface of the computing machine; displaying a second value associated with the second points portion in a second area of a user interface of the computing machine; and displaying a third value associated with the one or more electronic tokens in a third area of a user interface of the computing machine. Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required. For the purpose of this examination, Examiner interprets the above limitation as displaying values associated with area of a user interface of the computing machine.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al, US Pub No: 2007/0192186 A1 in view of Smith et al, US Pub No: 2009/0124384 A1.
Claims 1, 11-12;
Greene discloses:
receiving an indication of a booking event completed by a user utilizing an application executed on a computing machine (see at least paragraph 77 ( Once the participant has verified the information presented in step 344 and optionally made a seat selection in step 346, the participant completes the reservation and books with the partner service provider. This may be done, for example, by clicking a completion link 1914 on web page 1900); the booking event being memorialized by way of storing a booking record in a booking database, the booking event being associated with a user's balance, the user's balance being represented by a number of points divisible into a first points portion and a second points portion (see at least paragraphs 77-80, paragraph 79 (Once the information has been verified by the participant in step 344, and the booking completed, method 300 proceeds to step 348. In step 348, a confirmation is provided to the participant that the reservation was successfully booked by the partner service provider. The participant is also notified of the updated number of rewards points in the participant's partner frequent customer program account and the number of rewards points in the participant's comprehensive rewards program account); paragraph 67 (Dashboard view 1408 may indicate the number of rewards points available to the participant, the number of rewards points that may be advanced to the participant, as well as the rewards point totals for each linked frequent flyer program account); paragraph 80 (FIG. 21 is a screenshot of an example web page 2100 that may be used in step 348 to provide confirmation of an airline ticket purchase to the participant. Web page 2100 includes details about the booking made by the participant with the partner airline company. Web page 2100 also includes dashboard view 1408, which reflects the updated rewards point values available in the participant's accounts after the booking for all of their linked accounts. Web page 2100 may also include links to search hotels at the destination area (such as hotel search link 2102) and/or links to points of interest in the destination area (such as restaurant link 2104);
maintaining the second points portion as credit on the user's balance, wherein the user is not authorized to use the credit to obtain items or services of value (see at least paragraph 67 (Although accounts from multiple partner service providers may be linked to the comprehensive rewards program, a conversion is applied to point totals from each partner service provider to convert the partner service provider point totals into comprehensive rewards program point totals. The account balance in dashboard view 1408 may thus be indicated in points corresponding to the comprehensive rewards program. The conversion factor applied may be displayed to the participant when the participant selects or scrolls over the account name);
Greene does not specifically disclose, but Smith however discloses:
generating one or more electronic tokens having a first value equal to a value of the first points portion, in response to a first threshold being met;
storing the one or more electronic tokens in an electronic ledger associated with the user, wherein the user is authorized to utilize the one or more electronic tokens on an electronic exchange platform to obtain one or more items or services;
See at least paragraphs15,18 and 101; paragraph 15 (the promotional currency is in a form of units of discount, such as discount tokens or discount coupons, which can be exchanged for a discount on a good or service made, distributed or offered by the advertiser or sponsor); paragraph 18 (a third party advertiser or sponsor, such as ABC watch company, works in conjunction with the casino to create 200 units of promotional currency (e.g., ABC watch company dollars, points or discount tokens). One or more players accumulate or use the ABC discount tokens through plays of a game at one of the gaming machines. Each ABC watch discount token can be exchanged for a gift certificate, ticket or coupon towards a high value watch sold, manufactured or distributed by the ABC watch company. In one embodiment, the player is not able to accumulate or use enough ABC watch discount tokens to cover the total cost of the ABC watch. That is, ABC discount tokens can be used to discount an ABC watch but not buy the watch without a further payment);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Green’s transfer and booking tool for multiple rewards programs with Smith providing third party promotion as electronic token in order to allows the customer to select from a variety of options that fulfill their need and hence improve marketability.
Examiner notes :
the amended underlined limitations of claims 1,for instance of “receiving an indication of a booking event completed by a user utilizing an application executed on a computing machine, the booking event being memorialized by way of storing a booking record in a booking database, the booking database associated with a schema having a single table design implemented to construct a plurality of class properties and to leverage a primary key (PK) attribute and a sort key (SK) attribute to allow injection of class property values for data entities into a template to efficiently differentiate between the data entities in the single table design, wherein a first global secondary index (GSIl) and a second global entry index (GSI2) are provided to support multiple query options for accessing data stored in the booking database,” are given no patentable weight because first, they are merely the description information that are included/contained/stored in the booking database, and they have not been used to achieve anything in the claim. Second, the actions that are recited in the mentioned underlined limitations (e.g., to leverage a primary key (PK) attribute and a sort key (SK) attribute to allow injection of class property values for data entities into a template to efficiently differentiate between the data entities in the table design, wherein a first global secondary index (GSIl) and a second global entry index (GSI2) are provided to support multiple query options for accessing data stored in the booking database) are provided to support multiple query options for accessing data stored in the booking database) are not positively recited in the claim. Also, the recitation. Same analysis is applied to claims 11-12,19-20 and therefore no prior art is required.
Claims 2 and 13:
The combination of Green/ Smith discloses the limitations as shown above.
Green further discloses:
displaying a first value associated with the first points portion in a first area of a user interface of the computing machine;
displaying a second value associated with the second points portion in a second area of a user interface of the computing machine;
See at least paragraph 67 and fig 15 A with the associated text (Although accounts from multiple partner service providers may be linked to the comprehensive rewards program, a conversion is applied to point totals from each partner service provider to convert the partner service provider point totals into comprehensive rewards program point totals. The account balance in dashboard view 1408 may thus be indicated in points corresponding to the comprehensive rewards program. The conversion factor applied may be displayed to the participant when the participant selects or scrolls over the account name); paragraph 72 (FIGS. 16B and 16C. FIG. 16B is a screenshot of an example pop-up window 1612 that includes an information overview, photographs, and/or maps of the selected hotel. After viewing pop-up window 1612, the participant may close the window and return to web page 1600, or the participant may request additional information regarding the selected hotel. FIG. 16C is a screenshot of an example web page 1616 that may be displayed as an alternative or an addition to pop-up window 1612. Web page 1616 displays detailed information, photographs, and/or maps of the selected hotel);
Green does not specifically disclose, but Smith however discloses:
displaying a third value associated with the one or more electronic tokens in a third area of a user interface of the computing machine (see at least paragraph 16 (any discount tokens or promotional currency earned or accumulated by a player are displayed in the dedicated space. In various embodiments, the discount tokens are redeemable at the advertiser or sponsor for discounting or purchasing such products, goods, and services);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Green’s transfer and booking tool for multiple rewards programs with Smith providing third party promotion as electronic token with the motivation of allowing the customer to select from a variety of options that fulfill their need and hence improve marketability.
Claims 3 and 14:
The combination of Green/ Smith discloses the limitations as shown above.
Green further discloses:
updating the user's balance including the first points portion and the second points portion, in response to receiving additional indications of booking events completed by the user;
updating the first points portion, in response to the second points portion exceeding a predetermined threshold;
See at least paragraph 75 (As the participant selects various options in payment options section 1702, a payment summary chart 1706 may be updated to reflect those options. Payment summary chart 1706 may list, for example and without limitation, the number of rewards points used from the participant's account with the partner frequent customer program, the number of rewards points used from the participant's account with the comprehensive rewards program, the number of rewards points purchased by the participant from the comprehensive rewards program, the number of rewards points advanced by the comprehensive rewards program, and any fees associated with the travel booking); paragraph 79 (The participant is also notified of the updated number of rewards points in the participant's partner frequent customer program account and the number of rewards points in the participant's comprehensive rewards program account); paragraph 80 (FIG. 21 is a screenshot of an example web page 2100 that may be used in step 348 to provide confirmation of an airline ticket purchase to the participant. Web page 2100 includes details about the booking made by the participant with the partner airline company. Web page 2100 also includes dashboard view 1408, which reflects the updated rewards point values available in the participant's accounts after the booking for all of their linked accounts. Web page 2100 may also include links to search hotels at the destination area (such as hotel search link 2102) and/or links to points of interest in the destination area (such as restaurant link 2104);
Claims 4-10 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al, US Pub No: 2007/0192186 A1 in view of Smith et al, US Pub No: 2009/0124384 A1 in view of Muriqi, US Pub No: 2024/0046318 A1.
Claims 4-10 and 15-18:
The combination of Green/ Smith discloses the limitations as shown above.
The combination of Green/ Smith does not specifically disclose, but Muriqi however discloses :
wherein the electronic ledger is implemented on a blockchain platform (see at least paragprh 49 (the advertiser provides the main financial input, and escrows tokens to fulfill the campaign with a smart contract on the blockchain);
where a smart contract is implemented to mint the one or more electronic tokens to be added to the electronic ledger;
wherein the one or more electronic tokens are cryptographic tokens;
see at least paragraph 16 (The token system, in contrast, preferably has characteristics of a more typical cryptocurrency blockchain. The various distributed ledgers may be consolidated or separate. The social network database is updatable, and according to social network rules, records may be purged and/or modified. Thus, the social network distributed ledger need not be immutable or non-repudiable, and therefore may be simplified with respect to a Bitcoin style blockchain);
wherein the smart contract is an Ethereum ERC-20 smart contract;
wherein the electronic ledger is implemented over an Ethereum blockchain ecosystem;
where a smart contract is implemented to mint non-fungible tokens (NFTs) as defined by Ethereum ERC-721 Non-fungible Token Standard;
wherein the NFTs have unique properties and attributes;
see at least paragraphs 213, 218-219, 229-230; paragraph 229 ( A non-fungible token (NFT) is a cryptographically unique token, which can be used to keep track of the ownership of individual assets. Non-fungible tokens differ from fungible tokens in terms of interchangeability, uniformity, and divisibility. A non-fungible token cannot be divided in nature, in which each one contains some distinctive information and attributes to identify itself from others uniquely. This feature makes NFTs impossible to interchange with each other. In general, each non-fungible token is unique and differs from others. The ERC-20 standard provides the technological framework and best practices for fungible token creation under Ethereum blockchains. Similarly, the ERC-721 standard did the same for non-fungible tokens, which allows the developers to create a digital asset representation that can be exchanged and tracked on the blockchain);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Green/ Smith third party promotion transfer and booking tool for multiple rewards programs with Muriqi networked based rewards with the motivation of providing consumers with a secure consensus mechanism guarantees the security of their rewards within transactions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Kang et al, US Pub No: 20220198418 A1, teaches systems and methods in a distributed system with Blockchain protocols and smart contact
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is files within TWO MONTHS from 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [ Mon-Thursday 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 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 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.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622