DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 14 October 2025.
Claim 5 has been canceled. Claim 20 has been added. Claims 1, 6, 8-12, 15-17, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected.
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 .
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “claim 1 recites a new technical improvement for recording, as a usage history of a serve, a date and time of use of the service in association with a token and is therefore eligible under USC 101.” Applicant does not provides support for a conclusion that a technical improvement is present in the claims and Examiner does not find a technical improvement in the claims. Rather, the step wherein a usage history is recorded, is performed by the generic apparatus recited in claim1. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC § 102/103, the claims have been amended and additional art has been found that teaches the new limitations, as shown in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A-Prong One
(Claims 1, 8, and 9) These claims recite the concept of rewarding a user for participating in a series of transactions (see “store, in a storage, a rule associating a usage history of a service provided by each of a plurality of business entities with a providable incentive service; determine, when acquiring the usage history of the service provided by each of the plurality of business entities for a user, by using the rule, an incentive service providable to the user and execute processing related to the determined incentive service; accept deposit of a virtual currency to a wallet on a user terminal of the user by the user; store the accepted virtual currency in a deposit pool: determine a fee related to use of the service when detecting use of the service using the wallet; and perform a settlement processing to settle a value equivalent to the usage fee from the virtual currency of the user deposited at an amount acquired by applying the determined incentive, wherein a token is set to the service, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: issue a token for the service, assign the token to the user, and release assignment of the token issued to the user when provision of the service ends; determine the usage history of the service for the each user by using the usage history of the token; and in a case where a terminal at a side of business entity receives information from a terminal of the user, record, as the usage history of the service corresponding to the terminal of the business entity, a date and time of use of the service in association with the token” in claim 1, for example). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including commercial activities and following rules or instructions. Thus, claims 1-4 and 6-20 recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 10, and 15 further limit the abstract idea by refining the types of transactions that a user can participate in (see “the service includes at least two items out of use of a transportation system, purchase of an article, and use of a lodging facility” in claim 10, for example). This limitation does not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3, 11, and 16 further limit the abstract idea by indicating the award is a predetermined value and that the value is awarded to the user (see “the incentive service is awarding of a predetermined value to the user, and the method, by the service management apparatus, further comprises executing awarding of the value to the user” in claim 11, for example). These limitations do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 further limit the abstract idea by refining the type of award (see “the predetermined value is defined in a virtual currency”). This limitation does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7, 14, and 19 further limit the abstract idea by indicating a rule is selected and used (see “selecting at least one rule out of a plurality of the rules; and using the selected rule” in claim 14, for example). These limitations do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component does not take the claim limitations out of the identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of an apparatus comprising a least one memory and at least one processor (claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 20), an apparatus (claims 8 and 10-14), or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claims 9 and 15-19) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The apparatus or computer-readable storage medium does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0145778 (“Fordyce”) in view of US 2020/0394872 (“Springer”) and US 2023/0079195 (“Matheson”).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 9, Fordyce teaches a service management apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions (See “A network apparatus for implementing a multi-provider rewards program” in claim 1 and “an article of manufacture comprising a computer readable medium having computer readable program code means embodied therein” in ¶ 0016.), a method (See “At least some implementations include a method for implementing a multi-provider rewards program” in ¶ 0015.), a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (See “Other implementations include an article of manufacture comprising a computer readable medium having computer readable program code means embodied therein for implementing a multi-provider rewards program” in ¶ 0016.) and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: store, in a storage, a rule associating a usage history of a service provided by each of a plurality of business entities with a providable incentive service (See “Referring to FIG. 3, an exemplary rewards program database 180 is shown in table format. Database 180 includes three columns including a rewards program column 352, a participant accounts column 354, a rules column 356 and a reward/payors column 358” in ¶ 0045, “Rules column 356 lists a separate rule set for each of the rewards programs in column 352. For instance, the rule set 360 for program AAA requires that a consumer spend at least twenty dollars with each of three merchants XX, YY and ZZ within a two hour period beginning with merchant XX, followed by merchant YY and ending with merchant ZZ. This exemplary rule set is referred to herein as a scavenger hunt rule set” in ¶ 0047, “Reward/Payors column lists rewards to be awarded to consumers if their transaction history meets rule requirements for the programs in column 352. For instance, reward 362 indicates that a total of twenty dollars is to be rewarded if the requirements of rule set 360 are met” in ¶ 0048, and Fig. 3 showing the database.);
determine, when acquiring the usage history of the service provided by each of the plurality of business entities for a user, by using the rule, an incentive service providable to the user and execute processing related to the determined incentive service (See “The account holder 108(p) proceeds to the first merchant 110(n) and purchases items totaling more than twenty dollars ($20 U.S.) using the contactless payment device. As previously described, transaction data, in the form of an authorization request, is directed from the merchant 110(n) to an associated acquirer 106(i) (arrow 162) and on to the issuer 104(j) via the transaction handler 102(k) (arrows 170, 176). Referring still to FIG. 4, at block 206, at least a portion of the transaction data is stored in transactions database 182(z) by the transaction handler 102(k) (i.e., by the rewards program implementer) so as to be correlated with the account holder's account number” in ¶ 0055, “At block 212 handler 102(k) compares the account transactions to program rules” in ¶ 0057, “Referring again to block 214 in FIG. 4, if the rule requirements have been met, control passes to block 216 where handler 102(k) identifies a reward. In the present example, if three of the transactions associated with account holder 108(p) satisfy the scavenger hunt program rules, account holder 108(p) is eligible to receive the twenty dollar ($20.00 U.S.) reward as a credit to his account with the issuer 104(j)” in ¶ 0060 and Fig. 4 showing the process flow of the transaction and reward tracking.); and
in a case where a terminal at a side of business entity receives information from a terminal of the user, record, as the usage history of the service corresponding to the terminal of the business entity, a date and time of use of the service in association with the token (See “An exemplary retail transaction occurring within the illustrated system 100 begins when a consumer, or account holder 108(p), wishes to pay for goods or services from a merchant 110(n). Merchant 110(n) subsequently presents a total due to the account holder 108(p) (arrow 156). The merchant 110(n) further generates other financial and non-financial transaction data. Other possible financial transaction data includes sales tax, applied discounts such as coupons, and the like. Non-financial transaction data may include the date and time of the transaction, merchant identity, a store identifier, and the like” in ¶ 0031.).
Fordyce does not expressly teach accept deposit of a virtual currency to a wallet on a user terminal of the user by the user; store the accepted virtual currency in a deposit pool: determine a fee related to use of the service when detecting use of the service using the wallet; and perform a settlement processing to settle a value equivalent to the usage fee from the virtual currency of the user deposited at an amount acquired by applying the determined incentive, wherein a token is set to the service, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: issue a token for the service, assign the token to the user, and release assignment of the token issued to the user when provision of the service ends; determine the usage history of the service for the each user by using the usage history of the token.
However, Springer teaches accept deposit of a virtual currency to a wallet on a user terminal of the user by the user; store the accepted virtual currency in a deposit pool: determine a fee related to use of the service when detecting use of the service using the wallet; and perform a settlement processing to settle a value equivalent to the usage fee from the virtual currency of the user deposited at an amount acquired by applying the determined incentive (See ¶ 0011 and ¶ 0020, and ¶¶ 0021, 0025, and 0026 showing the virtual currency and usage fees in examples and ¶¶ 0035-0037 showing examples of how the fees may vary.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Fordyce and Springer to utilize virtual currencies and fees. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Further, Matheson teaches a token is set to the service, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: issue a token for the service, assign the token to the user, and release assignment of the token issued to the user when provision of the service ends (See “The NFTs utilize distributed ledger or blockchain technology to offer potential tracking and incentive functionality for merchants, particularly with respect to products or services that are unique or quasi-unique, such as event tickets. A customer purchases the particular product from a merchant's online store during a purchase transaction process (sometimes called a “purchase event,” “transactions associated with one or more blockchain tokens,” or “transactions associated with one or more NFTs”). Before, after, or upon the purchase event, an ecommerce platform server or a merchant server mints (generates and issues) a set of one or more NFTs on a blockchain. The NFTs may represent various aspects of the purchased product and/or metadata associated with purchase transaction, such as information about the customer, the merchant, and the devices, among others. … The platform server stores the NFTs into the customer's wallet” in ¶ 0013 and ¶ 0102 discussing the transfer of custody of the NFT during a flash sale on restricted or limited products.); determine a usage history of the service for the each user by using the usage history of the token (See “The platform server or merchant server may reference the customer's purchase history stored in the platform database, blockchain blocks, or NFTs to track and identify customer purchasing behaviors. For example, the platform server may cross-reference the NFTs of prior events (e.g., tickets, receipts, downloaded albums) to derive information (e.g., venue, genre, pricing, artist) to identify and suggest purchases (e.g., concert events) of interest” in ¶ 0016.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Fordyce, Springer, and Matheson to utilize tokens, particularly NFTs, to track user transactions. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 2, 10, and 15, Fordyce further teaches the service includes at least two items out of use of a transportation system, purchase of an article, and use of a lodging facility (See “the rewards program is a multiple merchant (multi-merchant) type rewards program designed to reward consumers for selecting a combination of merchants, including a hotel chain, a car rental chain, and a restaurant chain” in ¶ 0064.).
Regarding Claims 3, 11, and 16, Fordyce further teaches the incentive service is awarding of a predetermined value to the user, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute awarding of the value to the user (See “Referring again to block 214 in FIG. 4, if the rule requirements have been met, control passes to block 216 where handler 102(k) identifies a reward. In the present example, if three of the transactions associated with account holder 108(p) satisfy the scavenger hunt program rules, account holder 108(p) is eligible to receive the twenty dollar ($20.00 U.S.) reward as a credit to his account” in ¶ 0060 and “At block 220, after receiving the funds for the reward, a credit for the twenty dollars ($20.00 U.S.) is transmitted to the issuer 104(j) (arrow 176) at block 222 for fulfillment of the rewards program. … At block 226 a notice is sent to the consumer indicating that the reward has been awarded” in ¶ 0062.).
Regarding Claim 4, Fordyce further teaches the predetermined value is defined in a virtual currency (See “For instance, while rewards are described as funds credited to a consumer's account above, it should be appreciated that other types of awards are contemplated including but not limited to gifts, bonus points in frequent use programs, discount coupons, etc” in ¶ 0076 wherein bonus points in a frequent use program are considered a virtual currency.).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 18, Fordyce does not expressly teach the token is a non-fungible token (NFT).
However, Matheson teaches the token is a non-fungible token (NFT) (See “This application generally relates to non-fungible tokens (NFTs) “ in ¶ 0001 and “The NFTs utilize distributed ledger or blockchain technology to offer potential tracking and incentive functionality for merchants, particularly with respect to products or services that are unique or quasi-unique, such as event tickets” in ¶ 0013.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Fordyce and Matheson to utilize tokens, particularly NFTs, to track user transactions. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 7, 14, and 19, Fordyce further teaches select at least one rule out of a plurality of the rules; and use the selected rule (See “Other exemplary incentive programs may be offered to only select consumers, such as those spending more than a certain amount each month in a multitude of stores. Those consumers may be eligible for a given credit, for example, $10.00 USD, off a series of purchases that exceed a predefined amount. Another incentive program may reward selected consumers that purchase a number of particular items from one or more merchants, for example, buying a mattress and pillows results in a free bed spread. Each incentive program has specific rules that must be satisfied before a consumer can receive a reward” in ¶ 0024.).
Regarding Claim 20, Fordyce does not expressly teach in use of each service provided by each of the plurality of business entities, a balance of a deposit of an asset of the user in the deposit pool or a past track record is set as a condition.
However, Springer teaches in use of each service provided by each of the plurality of business entities, a balance of a deposit of an asset of the user in the deposit pool or a past track record is set as a condition (See ¶ 0025 wherein the amount of time is considered a past track record.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Fordyce and Springer to utilize a past track record as a condition. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
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 filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622