DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 4/22/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
This application is a CON of 17/502,719 10/15/2021. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-15 are directed to a system and claims 16- 20 are directed to a computer implemented method.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A system for provisioning goods or services to a consumer via an online, networked environment, the system comprising: multiple hardware modules, including: a persona module that determines a current digital persona for a consumer after the consumer accesses an online portal or geographic location for one or more entities associated with the goods or services, wherein the current digital persona for the consumer includes information that represents a current compatibility of the consumer to receive the goods or services from the one or more entities associated with the networked environment, and wherein the current digital persona is determined based on: an assessment of affordability of the goods or services to the user, an assessment of relevancy of the goods or services to the user, and an assessment of desirability of the goods or services to the user; a path module that:
[B] determines a current digital persona for a consumer after the consumer accesses an online portal or geographic location for one or more entities associated with the goods or services,
[C] generates a navigable path to present to the consumer based on the current digital persona determined for the consumer,
[D] wherein the navigable path includes a set of digital actions to be performed for the consumer within the networked environment, the set of digital actions based at least in part on modifying the current digital persona determined for the consumer to a digital persona associated with a ready state to receive the goods or services; and
[E] determines that the consumer has achieved the ready state to receive the goods or services based on performance of the set of digital actions, wherein the ready state is based on the consumer traversing the navigable path to a pre-determined end point; and
[F] a boarding module that: validates the consumer has achieved the ready state to receive the goods or services; and
[G] causes the one or more entities providing the goods or services to interact transact with the consumer within the networked environment based on the validation that the consumer has achieved the ready state.
Independent claim 1 recites: the system determines that the consumer is in the position to make a purchase ([E]); the consumer is validated ([F]); providing the goods or services [(G)]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “multiple hardware modules” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the qualifiers “wherein the navigable path includes a set of digital actions to be performed for the consumer within the networked environment, the set of digital actions based at least in part on modifying the current digital persona determined for the consumer to a digital persona associated with a ready state to receive the goods or services”; “wherein the ready state is based on the consumer traversing the navigable path to a pre-determined end point” as applied to the navigable path, and the ready state, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: determines a digital persona for a consumer ([B]), generates a connection to the consumer ([C]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 1 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 1 is deemed ineligible.
Independent claim 16, is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A method performed by a network server of interacting with a user over a network
[B] determining a current persona for the user with respect to a digital service provided by an entity supported by the network server,
[C] wherein the current persona is determined after the user accesses an online portal or geographic location associated with the entity;
[D] causing the user to navigate a path of interactive actions that are based on the current persona determined for the user and selected to modify the current persona to a digital persona suitable for the digital service provided by the entity; and
[E] only upon completion of the interactive path by the user, providing the digital service from the entity supported by the network server to the user.
Independent claim 16 recites: bringing the consumer in a state to buy a digital service([D]), and providing the digital service ([E]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 16 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the qualifiers “wherein the current persona is determined after the user accesses an online portal or geographic location associated with the entity” as applied to the persona, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: creating a persona for a user ([B]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 16 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 16 is deemed ineligible.
Independent claim 20, is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 20 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A computerized method of qualifying a user to receive a service over a network, the method comprising:
[B] determining a current persona for the user with respect to a service provided by an entity,
[C] wherein the current persona is based on subjective and objective data associated with the user, and
[D] wherein the current persona is represented by a three-dimensional vector;
[E] mapping the three-dimensional vector representing the current persona determined for the user to a three-dimensional persona map that relates user characteristics to user readiness to receive the service and is associated with the service provided by the entity,
[F] wherein the three-dimensional persona map includes: a first dimension associated with an affordability assessment of the user, a second dimension associated with a relevancy assessment of the user, and a third dimension associated with a desirability for the entity;
[G] causing the user to perform one or more digital, interactive actions to modify the three-dimensional vector representing the determined current persona;
[H] re-mapping the modified three-dimensional vector to the three-dimensional persona map that is associated with the service provided by the entity;
[I] determining the user is qualified to receive the service over the network when the modified three-dimensional vector is within a region of the three-dimensional map associated with qualified users for the service provided by the entity; and
[J] causing the user to receive the service over the network.
Independent claim 20 recites: validating the created persona with interactive actions ([G]); re-mapping the modified three-dimensional vector ([H]); determining that the suer is qualified to receive the service ([I]); and providing the service ([J]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 20 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the qualifiers “wherein the current persona is based on subjective and objective data associated with the user”; “wherein the current persona is represented by a three-dimensional vector”; “wherein the three-dimensional persona map includes: a first dimension associated with an affordability assessment of the user, a second dimension associated with a relevancy assessment of the user, and a third dimension associated with a desirability for the entity” as applied to the current persona, and the three-dimensional persona map, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: determining a user persona ([B]); creating a tri-dimensional persona map ([E]) When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 20 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 20 is deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 2 recites:
[A] a first action that presents an interactive experience to the consumer; and
[B] a second action that presents one or more initial goods to be purchased by the consumer.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”).
Therefore, dependent claim 2 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites:
[A] the system interacts with the consumer via communications sent between an online portal associated with an online service provider and the mobile device of the user.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”).
Therefore, dependent claim 4 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites:
[A] determines the current digital persona for the consumer based on objective data associated with the consumer and subjective data obtained from the consumer.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”).
Therefore, dependent claim 5 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites:
[A] measures a readiness of the consumer to receive goods or services from a specific supplier or specific service provider over the networked environment.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”).
Therefore, dependent claim 7 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites:
[A] determines the current digital persona for the consumer as a representative point on a map that relates consumer characteristics to consumer readiness,
[B] wherein the representative point on the map is a multi-dimensional point on the map that represents a metric for the assessment of affordability of the goods or services to the user, a metric for the assessment of relevancy of the goods or services to the user, and a metric for the assessment of desirability of the goods or services to the user.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”).
Therefore, dependent claim 8 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 9 recites:
[A] determines the consumer has achieved the ready state to receive the goods or services based on navigation to one or more end points associated with the one or more entities providing the goods or services.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”).
Therefore, dependent claim 9 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 11 recites:
[A] monitors and scores interactions between the one or more entities providing the goods or services and the consumer over the networked environment.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”).
Therefore, dependent claim 11 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 12 recites:
[A] performs a validation action before causing the one or more entities to present the goods or services to the consumer.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”).
Therefore, dependent claim 12 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 13 recites:
[A] generates a smart contract between the consumer and the one or more entities in response to a transaction performed between the one or more entities and the consumer.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”).
Therefore, dependent claim 13 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 14 recites:
[A] provides a reward to the consumer in response to the consumer performing a portion of the set of actions within the navigable path.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”).
Therefore, dependent claim 14 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 15 recites:
[A] provides a reward to the consumer in response to the consumer completing a certain portion of the navigable path.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”).
Therefore, dependent claim 15 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 17 recites:
[A] generating a smart contract that represents a transaction between the entity and the user when the user receives the service from the entity over the network.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”).
Therefore, dependent claim 17 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 18 recites:
[A] provides the service to the user and a supplier that sells goods to the user during provision of the service to the user.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”).
Therefore, dependent claim 18 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 3, 6, 10, 19 recite:
wherein the one or more entities include a service provider that provides the services to the consumer and a supplier that provides the goods to the consumer.
wherein the current digital persona for the consumer includes a metric that measures a readiness of the consumer to receive specific goods or services.
wherein the path module determines the consumer has achieved the ready state to receive the goods or services based on navigation to one or more end points associated with a supplier providing the goods to the consumer.
wherein the current persona represents the user at a current point in time at which the user engages with the entity supported by the network server.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the participating entities; the digital persona; the path module; the current persona – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“a process aimed at driving user to purchase goods or services”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 3, 6, 10, 19 are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10, 12, 14-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reale (US 2016/0379507), in view of Rapaport et al (US 2014/0344718).
Regarding Claim 1: Reale discloses: A system for provisioning goods or services to a consumer via an online, networked environment, the system comprising:
multiple hardware modules, including: {see at least fig1, [0029]}
a persona module that
determines a current digital persona for a consumer after the consumer accesses an online portal or geographic location for one or more entities associated with the goods or services, {see at least [0006] material that captures people’s interest (reads on compatibility); [0008] relevant material (reads on current digital persona); relevant incentives, relevant health, wellness, fitness information (reads on current digital persona); [0049] content relevant to the goal (reads on current digital persona)}
a path module that:
generates a navigable path to present to the consumer based on the current digital persona determined for the consumer, {see at least [Abstract] system present challenge, interactive progress (reads on path); fig1, rc134, [0039] suggesting additional study material (reads on generating a navigable path for the consumer)}
wherein the navigable path includes a set of digital actions to be performed for the consumer within the networked environment, the set of digital actions based at least in part on modifying the current digital persona determined for the consumer to a digital persona associated with a ready state to receive the goods or services; and {see at least fig1, rc124, [0032] progress tracker – stored data reading user interactions with social media platforms (reads on digital actions within the networked environment)}
determines that the consumer has achieved the ready state to receive the goods or services based on performance of the set of digital actions, {see at least [0032] incremental rewards for achieving milestones; fig1, rc136, [0042], achieving milestones (reads on achieving ready state); fig1, rc124, rc126, [0046] tracking progress … reads (reads on achieving ready state); fig5, [0050] incentives toward achieving goal (reads on achieving a ready state)}
wherein the ready state is based on the consumer traversing the navigable path to a pre-determined end point; and {see at least [0012] tracking user’s progress toward attaining at least … (reads on traversing the navigable path to a pre-determined end point); fig9, [0053] … user's progress toward attaining at least one electronically interactive incentive … (reads on traversing the navigable path to a pre-determined end point)}
a boarding module that:
validates the consumer has achieved the ready state to receive the goods or services; and {see at least [0039] scoring module … falling short / not falling short of goals (reads on validating) [0041] entering sweepstakes (reads on achieving goal, i.e. ready state)}
causes the one or more entities providing the goods or services to interact transact with the consumer within the networked environment based on the validation that the consumer has achieved the ready state. {see at least [0040] … gift certificates to food establishments that sell healthy foods, sellers of sporting goods or sporting apparel, personal training gift certificates, a membership to a gym, ski passes, sneaker coupons, gift certificates to purchase music, spa coupons, gift certificates to clothing stores, sample products, or other gift-certificates or products …; [0042] various milestones achieved (reads on having had achieved the ready state)}
Reale does not disclose, however, Rapaport discloses:
wherein the current digital persona for the consumer includes
information that represents a current compatibility of the consumer to receive the goods or services from the one or more entities associated with the networked environment, and {see at least [0031]-[0032] current state of the user (reads on digital persona), recent habitual/routine activities are part of the PEEP (reads on compatibility to receive goods); [0097], [0101] digital persona in form of STAN; [claim 131; claim 132; claim 171-175; claim 192; claim 220; claim 221] updating persona (reads on modifying persona) for “likely to be welcomed or desired … servicings or tools or offerings or suggestions” (reads on ready state to receive the goods or services); [0097], [0101] digital persona in form of STAN}
wherein the current digital persona is determined based on: an assessment of affordability of the goods or services to the user {see at least [0025] "Is Joe well enough to play full throttle today?" (reads on affordability}, an assessment of relevancy of the goods or services to the user {see at least [0032] event-relevant (reads on relevancy}, and an assessment of desirability of the goods or services to the user {see at least fig4B, [0257] desirability analysis}.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Reale to include the elements of Rapaport. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to continuously monitoring consumer readiness to accept, so that the offer can be made at the right moment. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Reale evidently discloses motivating users to acquire goods and services. Rapaport is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of most current digital persona pointing to a desire to recei