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
This communication is a non-final action in response to preliminary amendment filed on 05/29/2024. Claims 1-15, 46-51 are pending.
Claim Objection
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, 46-47 are objected because they include phrases “one or more …. and …”. These “and” appears to be typographical error of “or”. Examiner recommends explicitly using “or” in association with “one or more” or “at least one of” in disjunctive situations. On the other hand, when requiring one of each elements, please explicitly states that each element must be present.
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 1-15, 46-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
With the exception of “interactive user interface” and “outside systems”, all the body of the claims are limitations that recites an abstract idea. In this case, it describes a series of steps to integrate data that is intended to be used for fee calculation. This is creating a business relationship or following rules. Both of which falls under certain methods of organizing human activities. Further, the steps are also similar to EPG’s collecting information, analyzing the information, which would therefore fall under mental processes as well. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
The additional element identified above (interactive user interface and outside systems) are merely general computer components that are used to perform the abstract idea. Whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, this is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on general computer or mere generally linking abstract idea to particular field of use (computer). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B
As discussed above in step 2A prong 2, of which the analysis still applies in step 2B, the additional elements, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on general computer or mere generally linking abstract idea to particular field of use (computer). Therefore, the additional elements do not provide significantly more either.
Claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-7 merely further limit the same abstract idea and therefore would still recite the same abstract idea. The step 2A prong 2 and step 2B analysis would remain the same and therefore these claims are not eligible either.
Claims 8-15, 46-51 can be similarly analyzed as claims 1-7 except for being in different statutory categories. Therefore, they are not eligible either.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15, 46-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lendner (US 20130103470) in view of Georgoff (US 20150134431)
As per claim 1, Lender discloses a method implemented by a system of one or more computers, the method comprising:
causing presentation of an interactive user interface (see at least Lendner, 0029, user 310 access offer via computer device);
receiving, via the interactive user interface, information defining an electronic service to be offered to receiving entities via deals, wherein the information includes an indication of a plurality of dimensions to be extracted from real-time interaction data (see at least Fig. 3, where multiple offers 311 are shown, where user action such as no action, or redeeming actions are tracked to system database 340, See also 029 redeeming offer can mean signing up for newsletter, which is a electronic service);
determining information defining a customization associated with a particular deal of the deals, wherein the customization enables adjustments to the information defining the electronic service (see at least Lendner, 0028, offers can be customized. Examiner notes “enables adjustments to the information defining the electronic service is an intended use language), and
integrating the real-time interaction data from a plurality of outside systems, wherein the interactive user interface receives user input indicative of transformations and logic associated with analyzing the real-time interaction data, and wherein the integrated real-time interaction data is utilized for fee calculations (see at least Fig. 3, data regarding influences are collected to generate feedback. See 0035, feedback can be in the form of monetary rewards. Examiner notes “for fee calculations” is intended use language).
Lendner does not explicitly using a same SKU for customizations associated with the deals.
Georgoff, however, teaches using the same SKU for customizations associated with the deals (see at least Georgoff, 0042, offers are organized via SKU so offers can be retrieved via identifying SKU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Georgoff’s SKU linked offers with Lendner customizable offers for the purpose of retrieving related offers easily.
As per claim 2, Lendner further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of dimensions includes one or more of priceable dimensions and transaction dimensions (see at least Lender, Fig. 3, feedbacks are generated based on responses. See 0035, feedback is related to monetary rewards).
As per claim 3, Lendner further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the information defining the electronic service further includes one or more logical expressions which use one or more parameters and which form a fee calculation (see at least Fig. 3, influences are categorized into 3 categories, which is a logical expression).
As per claim 4, Lendner further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the real-time interaction data is indicative of use of the electronic service by end-users associated with the plurality of outside systems (See at least 029 redeeming offer can mean signing up for newsletter, which is a electronic service).
As per claim 5, Lendner further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the customization enables adjustment to a fee calculation defined in the electronic service (see at least Lendner, 0028, offers can be customized. Examiner notes “enables adjustment to a fee calculation defined in the electronic service” is an intended use language)
As per claim 6, Lendner further discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the adjustment is with respect to one or more of a dimension, a type associated with the fee calculation, or one or more logical expressions which form the fee calculation (See at least Fig. 3, feedbacks are based on influence level, which is a dimension, a type or logical expression).
As per claim 7, Lendner further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the interactive user interface is configured to present summary information associated with use of the electronic service by one or more receiving entities (see at least Lendner, Fig. 3, offers may be printed (presented)).
Claims 8-15, 46-51 contains limitations substantially similar to claims 1-7 and are rejected based on similar rationale set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628