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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 12, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed December 12, 2025, the Examiner has maintained and updated the 35 USC § 101 and 103 rejections.
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 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claims 1, 13 and 20
using a reward listener to poll an event queue to determine when a user qualifies for a reward, wherein the event queue is populated through a reward making a call to publish an event to the event queue
obtaining reward information for a reward for a user, the reward information comprising a reward category, a credit type, and a reward value; identifying one or more regulatory frameworks applying to the user; determining a respective limit for each of the one or more regulatory frameworks;
determining a respective amount available within the respective limit for the user for each of the one or more regulatory frameworks;
accessing a ledger that tracks rewards already redeemed by the user during one or more time periods;
determining a respective amount available within the respective amount limit for the user for each of the one or more regulatory frameworks based on the rewards already redeemed by the user during the one or more time periods;
determining whether the reward value exceeds the respective amount available for any of the one or more regulatory frameworks; and
when the reward value exceeds the respective amount available for any of the one or more regulatory frameworks, preventing redemption of the reward.
The limitations of independent claim 1, 13, and 20 as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity because the claims have concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The applicant’s claims (in summary) using a reward listener…, obtain reward information…, identify regulatory framer work(e.g. rules) determine limits.., accessing a ledger…, determining a respective amount…, determine if the reward values exceed…, if the value exceeds an amount…, prevent the redemption of the reward. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of using a API, ledger, processor, non-transitory computer readable media. The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of obtaining, identifying, accessing, determining) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is 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 additional elements of API, ledger, computing system, processor, non-transitory computer readable media amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-21 appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-21 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea The claims the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1 - 21 are not patent eligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 10-12, 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves (US 2011/0159943) in view of Gomez (US 2019/0354982) in view of Ortiz et al. (US 2019/0073666) in further view of Rankin et al. (US 2023/0127222)
Claims 1, 13, and 20: Graves discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining from the event queue reward information for a reward for a user, the reward information comprising a reward category, a credit type, and a reward value;(see for example [0038], the original game mode that the player initiates has a prize structure that rewards the player either with (i) a number of plays at a second play mode, or with (ii) cash prizes of not more than ten (10) times the amount of the bet in the game or five dollars ($5), whichever is less, or with (iii) non-cash prizes having a wholesale value of not more than ten (10) times the amount of the bet in the game or five dollars ($5), whichever is less.) identifying one or more regulatory frameworks applicable to the user; (see for example [0040] applicable regulatory scheme limits the prizes available for any given play in a game to relatively small cash or non-cash prizes. Providing the second and higher level play modes according to the invention allows a player to have higher overall returns without violating the limitation associated with the return for a given game play.) determining a respective amount limit for each of the one or more regulatory frameworks; (see for example [0040, 0049, 0053], discloses regulatory requirements impose limits)
but does not explicitly disclose
determining whether the reward value exceeds the respective amount limit available for any of the one or more regulatory frameworks; and
when the reward value exceeds the respective amount available for any of the one or more regulatory frameworks, preventing redemption of the reward.
However Gomez discloses laws prohibiting the approval of a transaction that exceeds a certain value. [0046] It would have it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method, system, and non-transitory computer readable media of Graves to have included determining whether the reward value exceeds the respective amount available for any of the one or more regulatory frameworks; and when the reward value exceeds the respective amount available for any of the one or more regulatory frameworks, preventing redemption of the reward. The reference of Graves and Gomez both discloses providing a reward. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the method, system, and non-transitory computer readable media of regulatory frameworks requirements of Gomez for the regulatory frameworks requirements of Graves. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Graves and Gomez do not explicitly disclose using a reward listener to poll an event queue to determine when a user qualifies for a reward, wherein the event queue is populated through a reward API making a call to publish an event to the event queue: Ortiz discloses using a reward listener to poll an event queue to determine when a user qualifies for a reward, wherein the event queue is populated through a reward API making a call to publish an event to the event queue: (see for example [0273] a specific blockchain connector distributed application (blockchain connector Dapp) is utilized as an intermediary that is used for indirect access to the blockchain ledger/loyalty network through a set of integration adaptors, APIs, etc., which utilize event listeners and caches to generate command messages and signals which are then propagated to loyalty nodes of the loyalty network for generating new blocks representative of transactions on the blockchain data structure.) It would have it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method, system, and non-transitory computer readable media of Graves and Gomez to have included using a reward listener to poll an event queue to determine when a user qualifies for a reward, wherein the event queue is populated through a reward API making a call to publish an event to the event queue. The reference of Graves and Ortiz both discloses providing a reward. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the method, system, and non-transitory computer readable media of using a reward listener of Ortiz for the reward listener of Graves. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Graves, Gomez, Ortiz does not explicitly disclose accessing a ledger that tracks rewards already redeemed by the user during one or more time periods; determining a respective amount available within the respective amount limit for the user for each of the one or more regulatory frameworks based on the rewards already redeemed by the user during the one or more time periods;
However Rankin discloses accessing a ledger that tracks rewards already redeemed by the user during one or more time periods; determining a respective amount available within the respective amount limit for the users, based on the rewards already redeemed by the user during the one or more time periods; ([0004 and 0006], storing an account database for a centralized reward hub; providing a centralized reward hub interface for display at a client device associated with a client account, the centralized reward hub providing multiple merchants for selection; receiving a selection of a merchant from the client device; redirecting the client device to a merchant site for the selected merchant; providing, to a discount module integrated with the merchant site, a point balance for a client account; receiving, from the discount module, an updated point balance for the client account after application of a portion of the point balance to apply a discount at the merchant site; and updating the point balance for the client account in the account database.)
It would have it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method, system, and non-transitory computer readable media of Graves, Gomez, and Ortiz to have included accessing a ledger that tracks rewards already redeemed by the user during one or more time periods; determining a respective amount available within the respective amount limit for the users, based on the rewards already redeemed by the user during the one or more time periods; Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the method, system, and non-transitory computer readable media of using a ledger and tracking of Rankin for the records and tracking for each of the one or more regulatory framework used in Graves. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claims 2, 14.: Graves discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein determining whether the reward value exceeds the respective amount available for any of the one or more regulatory frameworks further comprises: determining whether the reward value exceeds the respective amount available within the reward category for the reward.
However Gomez discloses laws prohibiting the approval of a transaction that exceeds a certain value. [0046] It would have it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method, system, and non-transitory computer readable media of Graves to have included determining whether the reward value exceeds the respective amount available for any of the one or more regulatory frameworks; and when the reward value exceeds the respective amount available for any of the one or more regulatory frameworks, preventing redemption of the reward. The reference of Graves and Gomez both discloses providing a reward. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the method, system, and non-transitory computer readable media of regulatory frameworks requirements of Gomez for the regulatory frameworks requirements of Graves. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claims 4, 16: Graves, Gomez, Ortiz and Rankin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the reward category is one of promotional, risk-mitigation, research, statutory credit, or manual credit. [0034] Graves
Claim 7: Graves, Gomez, Ortiz and Rankin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more regulatory frameworks comprise a business limit imposed by a business associated with issuing the reward to the user. [0008, 0012] Graves
Claim 10: Graves, Gomez, Ortiz and Rankin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the reward information is obtained after the user qualifies for the reward and the reward is issued to the user. [0034] Graves
Claim 11: Graves, Gomez, Ortiz and Rankin disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the user qualifies for the reward based on completing a challenge. [0022] Graves
Claim 12: Graves, Gomez, Ortiz and Rankin disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising, before obtaining the reward information:
polling an event queue to determine when the user qualifies for the reward. [0044 and 0045] Graves
Claim 18: Graves, Gomez, Ortiz and Rankin disclose the system of claim 13, wherein: the reward information is obtained after the user qualifies for the reward and the reward is issued to the user; and the user qualifies for the reward based on completing a challenge. [0045 and 0046]Graves
Claim 19: Graves, Gomez, Ortiz and Rankin disclose the system of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise, before obtaining the reward information: polling an event queue to determine when the user qualifies for the reward. [0044 and 0045] Graves
Claim 21: Graves, Gomez, Ortiz and Rankin discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the one or more regulatory frameworks comprise a business limit imposed by a business associated with issuing the reward to the user. [0008, 0009] Graves
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves (US 2011/0159943) in view of Gomez (US 2019/0354982) and in view of Ortiz et al. (US 2019/0073666) and Rankin et al. (US 2023/0127222) in further view of Pierce et al. (US 2017/0106290)
Claims 3, 15: Graves, Gomez, Ortiz and Rankin disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more regulatory frameworks further comprises: but does not explicitly disclose identifying the one or more regulatory frameworks based on a locale of the user. However Pierce discloses identifying the one or more regulatory frameworks based on a locale of the user. [0032, 0034, and 0037]
It would have it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method, system, and non-transitory computer readable media of Graves to have included identifying the one or more regulatory frameworks based on a locale of the user. The reference of Graves and Pierce both discloses providing a reward. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the method, system, and non-transitory computer readable media of regulatory frameworks based on a locale of Pierce for the regulatory frameworks of Graves. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Claims 5: Graves, Gomez, Ortiz and Rankin disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more regulatory frameworks comprise a U.S. federal regulation.
However Pierce discloses wherein the one or more regulatory frameworks comprise a U.S. federal regulation. [0032 and 0034]
It would have it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method, system, and non-transitory computer readable media of Graves to have wherein the one or more regulatory frameworks comprise a U.S. federal regulation. The reference of Graves and Pierce both discloses providing a reward. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the method, system, and non-transitory computer readable media of regulatory frameworks comprise a U.S. federal regulation of Pierce for the regulatory frameworks of Graves. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 6: Graves, Gomez, Ortiz and Rankin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5,but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more regulatory frameworks further comprise a U.S. state regulation.
However Pierce discloses wherein the one or more regulatory frameworks further comprise a U.S. state regulation. [0032 and 0034]
It would have it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method, system, and non-transitory computer readable media of Graves to have wherein the one or more regulatory frameworks comprise a U.S. federal regulation. The reference of Graves and Pierce both discloses providing a reward. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the method, system, and non-transitory computer readable media of regulatory frameworks further comprise a U.S. state regulation of Pierce for the regulatory frameworks of Graves. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves (US 2011/0159943) in view of Gomez (US 2019/0354982) in view of Ortiz et al. (US 2019/0073666) and Rankin et al. (US 2023/0127222) in further view of Leekley et al. (US 2019/0087844)
Claim 8, 17: Graves, Gomez, Ortiz and Rankin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the respective amount available within the respective limit for the user for each of the one or more regulatory frameworks further comprises: accessing a ledger that tracks rewards redeemed by the user during one or more time periods. However Leekley discloses wherein determining the respective amount available within the respective limit for the user for each of the one or more regulatory frameworks further comprises: accessing a ledger that tracks rewards redeemed by the user during one or more time periods. [0096] Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, was made to modify, Graves, Gomez and Ortiz to include wherein determining the respective amount available within the respective limit for the user for each of the one or more regulatory frameworks further comprises: accessing a ledger that tracks rewards redeemed by the user during one or more time periods. The rationale for doing so is that applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 9: Graves, Gomez, Ortiz and Rankin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8,but does not explicitly disclose wherein the ledger is a blockchain ledger. However Leekley discloses wherein the ledger is a blockchain ledger. [0096]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, was made to modify, Graves, Gomez and Ortiz to include wherein the ledger is a blockchain ledger. The rationale for doing so is that applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the 35 USC 101 rejection that the amended claims recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer, other technology or technical field and recite the use of the ideas in a meaningful way beyond generally linking to a particular technological environment. The Examiner respectfully disagrees the applicant merely provides claim limitations as evidence but does not provided any arguments as to how/why the claims recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer, and an improvement to other technology or technical field, and also recite use of the ideas in a meaningful way beyond generally linking to a particular technological environment. Thus this argument is moot. Furthermore MPEP 2106.05(a) states if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Furthermore the limitations does not meaningful limit the abstract idea, the applicant’s additional elements such as API, ledger, computing system, processor, non-transitory computer readable media because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to particular technological environment. The applicant further argues the 35 USC 101 rejection by the limitations are improvements beyond what is well understood, routine and conventional. The Examiner respectfully disagrees the applicant has not provided any evidence or arguments. Thus this argument is also moot. Berkheimer evidence is not required, the Examiner has not asserted that any limitations are insignificant extra solution activity, nor has the Examiner stated that any limitations or additional elements are well understood, routine and conventional. Thus the Examiner is not required to provide Berkheimer evidence. (see MPEP 2106.07 states - At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2b")
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using 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 is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The claims do not appear to have any limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application. Thus the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are moot due to the updated rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622