DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Application
This Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed April 21, 2026. Claims 1 and 3 are amended. Claims 12-13 are added. Claims 1-6 and 12-13 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/21/2026 has been entered.
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 1-6, 12-13 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-7 are directed toward at least abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below.
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim, however is directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth the abstract idea recite:
performing a second analysis on the detected coupons in the coupon database to extract a detailed coupon information from each of the detected coupons; clustering the detailed coupon information corresponding to each of the detected coupons based on one or more predetermined criteria, and storing a clustered result in the coupon database, wherein the predetermined criteria include at least one of an industry associated with each of the detected coupons, a seller associated with each of the detected coupons, or an expiration date of each of the detected coupons; calculating coupon-cash exchange value as a cash equivalent of each of the detected coupons by a mathematical model of the Al tool applying at least one of (i) a currency exchange rate to a foreign-currency- denominated discount of the detected coupon, (ii) a mileage-to-cash conversion rate to an airline- mileage denomination of the detected coupon, or (iii) a market-price comparison between a cash value of the detected coupon and a historical market price of a product associated with the detected coupon, and re-calculating the coupon-cash exchange value responsive to a change in at least one of the currency exchange rate, a market price of a product associated with the detected coupon, or an airline pricing condition
creating at least one additional clustering criterion to said predetermined criteria based on the coupon-cash exchange value and incorporating coupon-cash exchange value into the detailed coupon information; and transmitting, the detailed coupon information selected from the clustered result responsive to a user request for display for coupon management. These limitations, comprise commercial interactions including, advertising, marketing or sales activities and business relations, as well as managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions. As such, the limitations are directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and mere use of a computer as a tool to perform or apply the abstract idea. In particular the claim recites the additional element of: obtaining, by a coupon artificial intelligence (Al) server in communication with the IT device raw data stored as text, image, video, or any combination thereof in the IT device; performing a first analysis on the raw data by the Al tool or the coupon Al server to automatically detect one or more coupons from the raw data, and storing the detected coupons in a coupon database of the coupon, Al server, the Al tool comprising an object detection model configured to filter a coupon region from a non-coupon region of the raw data and an optical character recognition model configured to extract coupon text from the coupon region, which amounts to obtaining a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and data gathering necessary to implement the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). While, the limitations, by an Al tool of the coupon Al server, in the coupon database; by the coupon Al server to the IT device, received from the IT device, on the IT device, are recited at a high level of generality and are merely the use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activities and merely applying the abstract idea by a computer. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements that does so, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Viewing the limitations individually, extracting raw data stored as text, image, video, or any combination thereof in the IT device by an artificial intelligence (AI) tool of the IT device or a coupon Al server; and the performing a first analysis on the raw data by the Al tool or the coupon Al server to automatically detect one or more coupons from the raw data, and storing the detected coupons in a coupon database of the coupon Al server are used only for insignificant extra-solution activity because such activities are used for providing the data source or type of data, and necessary data gathering used to implement the aforementioned abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have recognized performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronic scanning or extracting data, and receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)II; Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Moreover, it is well known and conventional to extract/analyze/use raw date in the form of text, image, video, or any combination thereof by an artificial intelligence tool. See at least Hiscox et al. (US 20250086705 A1); Balasubramaniam et al. (US 20210097567 A1); Figueroa et al. (US 20240177113 A1); Yadav et al. (US 20220309429 A1) Ramirez (US 20230162245 A1) Figueroa et al. (US 20230186328 A1); Park (US 20110225031 A1); Snopek et al. (US 20230281654 A1). The additional limitations of, AI tool, IT device, AI server, a coupon database, also do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claims as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A review of dependent claims 2-6, 12-13 likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above. The claims only further add to the abstract idea, with no elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. For instance, claim 2, uses AI as a computer tool to further apply the abstract idea. Thus, while the dependent claims may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Applicant argues regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that Claim 1, as amended, is not directed to the sub-grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is directed to at least one abstract idea grouped under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because it comprise commercial interactions including, advertising, marketing or sales activities and business relations, the claim describes currency exchange, which is commerce activity; the claim describes providing coupon, which is advertising. As well as managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions (tracking users for coupon management). As such, the claims are directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Applicant submits that amended claim 1 as whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely uses computer components to apply the abstract idea. See 101 analysis; See at least, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”). Applicant’s rules are used in furtherance of the abstract ideas, which is in stark contrast to McRO, whose rules were used to improve a technology.
Applicant submits that amended claim 1 recites significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Enabling heterogeneous coupons to be evaluated in a common cash-equivalent unit and to be re-evaluated when external pricing data changes, is an abstract idea in and of itself. Merely applying the abstract idea by computer components does not amount to significantly more. See Id.
As such, the claims as a whole, in view of Alice, do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
B. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection,is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).
Prosecution Insights