DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 02 December 2025.
Claims 1, 12, and 19 have been amended. Claim 5 has been canceled.
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
The previous rejection under 35 USC § 112 has been remedied by amendment and is withdrawn. The amendments have presented a number of additional § 112 rejections, presented below.
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “No human can practically perform these steps mentally; nor do they describe a fundamental economic principle in abstract. Rather, the claims are directed to a specific improvement in how a computer-implemented, location-based transaction platform securely matches users and service providers and controls the application of loyalty points based on physical co-location.” Remarks at 12. These are only a few steps that Examiner has identified as falling into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. As an example, in the independent claims, Examiner maintains that a human can utilize information to identify a provider that meets certain criteria. The claims as a whole fall into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping including commercial interactions managing interactions between people. The claims continue to recite a commercial interaction, namely the use of loyalty points to procure a service. The claims continue to recite managing interactions between people, namely matching a user to a service provider based on location so that the above-mentioned commercial interaction can take place. The claims do continue to recite an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the claims recite a particular use of concrete hardware, e.g., GPS and WiFi transceivers of the first user device, to determine the geographical location used in the transaction.” Remarks at 12. The claims do not positively recite the GPS and WiFi transceivers. The GPS or WiFi transceivers are not actively performing any step. The step in which they are present indicates that the server receives, from the first user device, location data. That location data is indicated as being determined by the GPS or WiFi transceiver, but that determination is not actively performed in a step. Additionally, the GPS or WiFi transceiver is part of an optional limitation (see the § 112 rejection below for additional information on the ambiguity that is involved in this limitation) wherein if the user enters a specified geographic location (e.g., the user types in a zip code or a city/state), then the use of the GPS or WiFi transceiver does not come into play as it likely only exists to determine a geographical location of the first user device, which is only one optional avenue to obtain location data. Even if the GPS or WiFi transceivers were positively recited, these are common place generic hardware components that have long existed in user devices and would likely not result in a practical application. This argument is thus not persuasive.
Applicant argues that that “specification teaches that the server can request and receive current location data from both the first device and the second device, and can use that information, in combination with tracking and escrow, to verify that a valid transaction is occurring between legitimate parties at the expected location.” Remarks at 13. A number of these items are not present in the claims. The claims do recite receiving location information and verifying that devices are within a distance of each other. As noted above, the location information received from the user can be “a specified geographical location” which does not provide any guarantee that a valid transaction is occurring between legitimate parties. The claims do not align with what Applicant is arguing, thus the argument is not persuasive. Examiner also must note that even if the limitations argued by Applicant were to be included in the claims, this does not guarantee that the rejections would be overcome.
Regarding non-statutory double patenting, Examiner finds that the claims, as amended, are now substantially different enough from the patented claims that they are no longer an obvious variation of such claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 102/103, the claims as amended now recite limitations previous identified as not found in the prior art. An additional search confirms that these limitations are not found in the prior art. The rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 19 recite “the geographical location being determined by ….” It is unclear if “the geographical location” is referring to “a geographical location of the first user device” or “a specified geographical location” (both of which are introduced earlier in the claim). The “specified geographical location” does not likely need to be “determined” and so it is likely that “the geographical location” that is being determined is referring to the “geographical location of the first user device.” However, as currently recited, the claim is indefinite and requires clarity. All dependent claims are rejected due to their dependence upon a rejected claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the device associated with the at least one identified service provider” in lines 26-27 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-4 and 6-11 are rejected due to their dependence upon this rejected claim.
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
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 19, and 20 recite a system which is considered a machine or manufacture. Claims 12-18 recite a method which is considered a process.
Step 2A-Prong One
In claim 1, the “identify, from a plurality of service providers stored in a data storage associated with the server, at least one service provider accepting a loyalty point for fulfilling the service request, by automatically filtering, in accordance with the location data received from the first user device and location data of the plurality of service provider, those service providers that are within a predetermined location radius of the first user device and capable of fulfilling the service request” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “causing the processor to” language, the claim encompasses a user manually identifying a service provider meeting certain criteria. Thus, this claim falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 12 and 19 recite similar limitations and also fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, claims 1, 12, and 19 recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 12, and 19 recite the concept of allowing a first user to request a service and obtain loyalty points to procure the requested service (see, for example, “receiving a request via a web site hosted by a server over a communications network from a first user device, the request including first user identification information and a service request; receiving, from the first user device, location data corresponding to at least one of a geographical location of the first user device or a specified geographical location, the geographical location being determined by at least one of a global positioning system (GPS) transceiver or a WiFi transceiver of the first user device; identifying, by the server, from a plurality of service providers stored in a data storage associated with the server, at least one service provider accepting a loyalty point for fulfilling the service request by automatically filtering, in accordance with the location data received from the first user device and location data of the at least one plurality of service providers, those service providers that are within a predetermined location radius of the first user device and capable of fulfilling the service request; communicating, to the first user device, a list identifying the at least one service provider; establishing a secure communications link between the first user device and the at least one identified service provider, wherein the loyalty points associated with the identified service provider are utilized to procure the requested service for the first user identification and wherein a value of the loyalty points to be used corresponds to a geographical proximity between the location data received from the first user device and the location data of the at least one service providers receiving, via the secure communications link, current location information of the first user device and current location information of a device associated with the at least one identified service provider; verifying, based on the current location information, that the first user device and the device associated with the at least one identified service provider are within a predetermined distance of each other; utilizing, in accordance with the secure communications link, the loyalty points associated with the identified service provider to procure the requested service for the first user identification using the value of the loyalty points in response to the verifying; and communicating, via the secured communications link, confirmation data indicative of the procurement of the requested service from the at least one identified service provider to the first user device” in claim 12). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, including managing interactions between people and commercial interactions. Thus, claims 1, 12, and 19 recite an abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite limitations that fall into either the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping and/or the mental processes grouping. For example, claim 2 recites “identify a geographical location between the geographical location of the first user device and the geographical location of the at least one identified service provider” which is a process that can be performed mentally and thus falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, all limitations in claim 2 (see “identify a geographical location between the geographical location of the first user device and the geographical location of the at least one identified service provider; and communicate, via the secure communications link, the identified geographical location to the first user device and the at least one identified service provider”) fall into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping as they further refine the process of allowing the user to procure a requested service using loyalty points. Claims 2-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of system comprising a server comprising a processor and memory (found in claims 1-11, 19, and 20) or a web site hosted by a server, a first user device, and a secured communications link (found in claims 12-18) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using these generic computer components. The computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do 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(s) 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.
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 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 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