DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-11 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); Claims 12-20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 12 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 12 recites:
12. A system for facilitating referrals, the system comprising:
a referral platform comprising a server;
a mobile device; and
a network communicatively coupling the mobile device and the server of the referral platform;
wherein the server of the referral platform is configured to:
create a referral recipient account associated with a referral recipient and a referral source associated with the referral recipient account;
define a referral form for the referral source associated with the referral recipient account;
synch a URL encoder with the referral source and the referral recipient account, wherein the synched URL encoder encodes a uniform resource locator (URL) and a code identifying the referral recipient account and the referral source, the URL including a web address of the referral platform;
in response to receiving a request from the mobile device that includes the code, retrieve the referral form and provide the referral form to the mobile device;
receive a completed referral form from the mobile device and store the completed referral form;
wherein the mobile device is configured to:
tap or scan the URL encoder to read the URL and the code from the URL encoder;
using the URL and the code, transmit the request to the referral platform for the referral form;
receive, via one or more input devices of the mobile device, referral data to complete the referral form; and
provide the completed referral form to the referral platform.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because creating referral accounts and referral forms, receiving a request for the referral form, receiving referral data, generating a referral form with the referral data, and providing the completed referral form are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claim 12 and analogous independent claims 1 & 20 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-11 & 13-19 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claim 2 recites converting referral data into a different format, storing the referral data and creating a mapping to the data with a referral source and recipient account, generating, and providing a message to a recipient, Claim 5 recites applying a tag to a referral source and filtering and storing data based on the tag, Claims 6 & 19 recite generating and displaying analytic data via visualizing the data, Claim 7 recites the identifier information, Claim 8 recites creating referral source accounts, Claims 9-10 recites identifying a condition in recipient account data, generating, and providing an alert. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 12 and analogous independent claims 1 & 20, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
12. A system for facilitating referrals, the system comprising:
a referral platform comprising a server;
a mobile device; and
a network communicatively coupling the mobile device and the server of the referral platform;
wherein the server of the referral platform is configured to:
create a referral recipient account associated with a referral recipient and a referral source associated with the referral recipient account;
define a referral form for the referral source associated with the referral recipient account;
synch a URL encoder with the referral source and the referral recipient account, wherein the synched URL encoder encodes a uniform resource locator (URL) and a code identifying the referral recipient account and the referral source, the URL including a web address of the referral platform;
in response to receiving a request from the mobile device that includes the code, retrieve the referral form and provide the referral form to the mobile device;
receive a completed referral form from the mobile device and store the completed referral form;
wherein the mobile device is configured to:
tap or scan the URL encoder to read the URL and the code from the URL encoder;
using the URL and the code, transmit the request to the referral platform for the referral form;
receive, via one or more input devices of the mobile device, referral data to complete the referral form; and
provide the completed referral form to the referral platform.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the referral platform being a server, mobile device, network, input device; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of syncing a smart card with a URL encoder with a referral source and recipient account where the URL encoder includes a code identifying the referral recipient account and the referral source, the URL including a web address of the referral platform, the Examiner submits that these additional limitations do no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These limitations amount to a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (smart card) and a particular type of data (URL encoder includes a code identifying the referral recipient account and the referral source, the URL including a web address of the referral platform).
Regarding the additional limitation of tap or scan the URL encoder to read the URL and the code from the URL encoder; using the URL and the code, transmit the request to the referral platform for the referral form, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 12 and analogous independent claim 1 & 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recites at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 2 & 15: These claims recite using an API to send data to a third-party and updating data which amounts to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claims 3 & 17: These claims recite using a QR code or NFC chip to encode the URL and identifier which adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claim 4: This claim recites installing an application on a device and the application can be used to select a referral source which amounts to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claims 8 & 11: These claim recites synchronizing data on smart cards including referral source data which amounts to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10: This claim recites using a machine learning model trained to perform an inference task amount to mere instructions to apply an exception because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13: This claim recites receiving text and audio data from an input device and touch screen which represent insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., receiving and transmitting data)(see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and conventional activities as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 12 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the server, mobile device, network, input device; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of syncing a smart card with a URL encoder with a referral source and recipient account where the URL encoder includes a code identifying the referral recipient account and the referral source, the URL including a web address of the referral platform, the Examiner submits that these additional limitations do no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These limitations amount to a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (smart card) and a particular type of data (URL encoder includes a code identifying the referral recipient account and the referral source, the URL including a web address of the referral platform).
Regarding the additional limitation of tap or scan the URL encoder to read the URL and the code from the URL encoder; using the URL and the code, transmit the request to the referral platform for the referral form, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Furthermore, the Examiner asserts that encoding data such as identifier and URL data and scanning the encoded data are well-understood, routine, conventional activities – see US20140006125 describing the use of QR Codes for data storage and URI redirection capability.
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of using a QR code or NFC chip to encode the URL and identifier, receiving text and audio data from an input device and touch screen, which the Examiner submits merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined them to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Prior Art Rejection
All of the cited references fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims. The most relevant prior art of record includes:
Clayton (US12438888) teaches to an automated referral system and method for generating and managing referrals. The system receives user criteria and identifies relevant search results. It then generates and transmits referral requests to recipients corresponding to the search results. The system performs two-factor authentication before transmitting requests. Read receipts are received from recipients acknowledging the referral requests.
Peasley (US20210374792) teaches to a referral system which includes a computer-implemented mechanism for automatically linking a user with a vendor after the user has transacted at the vendor.
Meegan (US20140006125) teaches to a method and system for creating business referrals with cloud computing from social media sites.
Easterhaus (US20130282391) teaches to methods, systems, and computer-readable storage media that help a patient to manage his or her referral orders. Referral orders for the patient are aggregated, and patient-appropriate information is identified and extracted from the referral orders. A set of modified referral orders is generated based upon the patient-appropriate information and is displayed to the patient on a user interface. The patient is able to interact with the user interface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619