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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 08/06/2025.
Applicant elected Invention I, claims 1-13 are drawn to integrating partner infrastructure, by authenticating user identity, for access rights, validating ownership for distribution.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to for using an acronym without first fulling defining the acronym. When an acronym is first introduced in a claim it must be defined in full, and then the abbreviated form can be used thereafter. Applicant needs to define what the acronym stands for prior to using it. For example, Applicant can state for short Message Service (SMS) and then use the acronym SMS.
In the instance case, claim 1 recites the term “API”, which is acronym. Dependent claims 2-13 inherit the limitations of the claims from which they depend and, as such are objected to by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is also objected to for using the term “ URI”, which is acronym without first fulling defining the acronym. When an acronym is first introduced in a claim it must be defined in full, and then the abbreviated form can be used thereafter. Applicant needs to define what the acronym stands for prior to using it. For example, Applicant can state for short Message Service (SMS) and then use the acronym SMS. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation of : providing data monetization enabling an end user to harness and monetize their own data, turning insights from engagements into actionable improvements. However, claim 1 does not recite monitoring and/ or tracking in order to turn insight from end user engagement. Appropriate clarification and/ or amendment is required. For the purpose of this examination, Examiner interprets the above limitation, to mean providing data monetization enabling end user engagement into actionable improvements
Claim 12 recites the limitation of : wherein said system creates increased brand loyalty, by offering bundled benefits which continuously reward consumers for their purchases. However, claim 1 does not recite any limitation that is directed to tracking/ or monitoring an end user purchases bundled benefits in order for the reward to take place and increase brand loyalty. Appropriate clarification and/ or amendment is required. For the purpose of this examination, Examiner interprets the above limitation to mean wherein said system creates brand loyalty to reward consumers.
Claim 13 recites the limitation of : wherein said system creates higher margins and average order value. However, claim 1 limitations are not directed to margin in order to create a higher margin. Claim 1 limitations are also not directed to calculation of any value in order for an average value to take place. Examiner is unable to find support for the claimed feature in the specification. Thus, the Examiner is unable to determine the meets and bounds of the claimed features. For the purpose of this examination, Examiner interprets the above limitation to mean e- commerce system that provides data related to product margin and value ordered list.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim (s) 1-13 are directed to a process (i.e. a method). The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of: “ internal technology that authenticate user identity; ensuring individuals are who they claim to be and possess requisite rights to access and process information; validating ownership or participation of a user that ensures user data is accurately and securely transmitted; securely distributing benefits to said user; interfacing with a providers internal infrastructure; enhancing user experiences with seamless interactions ”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “system API, blockchain” The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) 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).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of “system API, blockchain” to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. 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.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraph 118); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. The dependent claims 2-13 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No). Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claim 1.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parlotto et al, US Pub No: 2022/0414621 A1.
As per claim 1, Parlotto teaches:
internal system APIs and blockchain technology that authenticate user identity (see at least paragraph 87 ( an API service may be provided to poll blockchain based at least in part on an asset owner's identifier, to validate and provide access to music from streaming services such as Apple Music™, Amazon Music™, Pandora™, and/or others. The user's identity and access to such streaming assets may be validated and access confirmed via reference to the blockchain);
ensuring individuals are who they claim to be and possess requisite rights to access and process information on said system;
validating ownership or participation of a user by a system that ensures user data is accurately and securely transmitted;
See at least paragraph 42 (In the present system, each gaming server accesses a ledger of users and assets, which may span multiple games, gaming platforms, and parties. Data on the ledger may be encrypted and usable only by relevant and authorized parties, but various parties may confirm validity of the data by calculating and confirming the blockchain); paragraph 73 (When the asset owner adds the virtual item(s) to the marketplace it makes a call to the public blockchain to validate ownership and completes dual authentication and enhanced security validation prior to allowing the post of the item. If approved, the individual buyer may see the product on the marketplace and may be able to initial a purchase. When completing this sale in the ecommerce experience and the individual buyer receives an approved payment response, and the Marketplace accesses an open API which provides services to revalidate ownership);
securely distributing benefits to said user; interfacing with a providers internal infrastructure (see at least paragraph 73 (When the asset owner adds the virtual item(s) to the marketplace it makes a call to the public blockchain to validate ownership and completes dual authentication and enhanced security validation prior to allowing the post of the item. If approved, the individual buyer may see the product on the marketplace and may be able to initial a purchase);
enhancing user experiences with seamless interactions (see at least paragraph 71 (The platform may enable multi-factor authentication and enhanced security validation prior to the transfer or rental of virtual products (game assets) to prevent fraud risks);
As per claim 3, Parlotto teaches:
wherein once validation is complete, said system sequences distribution of benefits associated with initial touchpoint (see at least paragraph 92 (a player of Forza racing games may maintain a record of all wins, top times, top speeds, etc. The record may be merely validated data showing the records, or may include video clips of gameplay, trophies, awards, etc) ; paragraph 93 (During a transaction, the customer's token may be accessed and associated programs reviewed for any applicable and/or matching programs. Such programs may then be accessed, and points awarded, discounts provided, or whatever is actionable from according to rules (for example, smart contracts) associated with each relevant program);
As per claim 4, Parlotto teaches:
wherein said system provides loyalty programs that encourage repeat engagements through reward systems ( paragraphs 80-83; paragraph 80 (rand Loyalty Rewards. In accordance with some embodiments of the present invention, a buyer may be entered into an loyalty program when the buyer completes a purchase of a virtual item (music, video, graphics, badges, and other game assets) through a Marketplace. Because of the buyer's preference or affinity for the brand, the buyer may be offered targeted promotions via a smart contract sitting on top of the blockchain);
As per claims 8-9, Parlotto teaches:
providing giveaways and exclusive digital content ;
branded mini-games and interactive content to keep consumers engaged and connected with a brand:
See at least paragraphs 70, 81, 91; paragraph 70 (an automotive company such as Nissan™ may sell a z300 virtual car directly to a player. The Nissan z300 virtual car may then be authorized/unlocked for use by that player on one or more gaming platforms, and for one or more games, such as but not limited to, Grand Theft Auto, Need for Speed and Forza. In addition, the authenticity of the virtual car and the legitimacy of the player's ownership of the virtual car may be confirmed with reference to the distributed blockchain);
As per claim 10, Parlotto teaches:
providing data monetization enabling an end user to harness and monetize their own data, turning insights from engagements into actionable improvements (see at least paragraphs 91-93; paragraph 91 ( digital locker may hold and maintain accomplishments, achievements, and in-game awards for multiple virtual environments (game, health tracking, video game, metaverse, or digital twin of a location, etc.). A virtual museum or hall of trophies across varied environments may would persist well beyond any single environment, and may be maintained even if a gaming platform terminates or goes offline. For example, top or best attributes of game play, and/or a record of such game play may be stored in a blockchain for all time and the associated awards added to a digital locker. A user may then review the blockchain data and revisit saved and/or impressive gameplay, or their records over time. With this solution there may be additional features, such as providing metrics of performance over time, detailed stats analytics, and recommended training plans. In this solution, an API may be provided for the virtual environments to post the transactions to the blockchain as well provide any awards a player may have achieved. There may also be an API to pull digital locker details to be displayed or award ownership validated);
As per claim 11, Parlotto teaches:
wherein said system provides bundling of branded digital products and experiences with an initial point of sale, enhancing consumer engagement and perceived value (see at least paragraphs 70, 81, 91; paragraph 70 (an automotive company such as Nissan™ may sell a z300 virtual car directly to a player. The Nissan z300 virtual car may then be authorized/unlocked for use by that player on one or more gaming platforms, and for one or more games, such as but not limited to, Grand Theft Auto, Need for Speed and Forza. In addition, the authenticity of the virtual car and the legitimacy of the player's ownership of the virtual car may be confirmed with reference to the distributed blockchain);
As per claim 12, Parlotto teaches:
wherein said system creates increased brand loyalty, by offering bundled benefits which continuously reward consumers for their purchases (see at least paragraph 70 (an automotive company such as Nissan™ may sell a z300 virtual car directly to a player. The Nissan z300 virtual car may then be authorized/unlocked for use by that player on one or more gaming platforms, and for one or more games, such as but not limited to, Grand Theft Auto, Need for Speed and Forza. In addition, the authenticity of the virtual car and the legitimacy of the player's ownership of the virtual car may be confirmed with reference to the distributed blockchain);
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, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Parlotto et al, US Pub No: 2022/0414621 A1 in view of Arora et al, US Pub Mo: 2018/0332032 A1.
Claim 2:
Parlotto discloses the limitations as shown above.
Parlotto does not specifically disclose, but Arora however discloses:
wherein URI mapping is incorporated as a supplementary validation method to enhance verification process (see at least paragraph 32 (end user desktop computing device 140 may execute a web browser application and may receive user input, via the web browser application, requesting a uniform resource locator associated with a login page for a user account portal associated with client authentication computing platform 110);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use multi-factor authentication and enhanced security validation prior to the transfer or rental of virtual products (game assets) to prevent fraud risks executing the method of Parlotto with the motivation of preventing unauthorized access to secured information system using URI authentication as a multi-device authentication prompts as an event sequence for preventing unauthorized access to secured user information system executing the method of Arora over that of Parlotto
( Arora paragraph 32).
Claims 5 and 7 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Parlotto et al, US Pub No: 2022/0414621 A1 in view of Vijayan, US Pub No: 20220253834 A1.
Claim 5:
Parlotto discloses the limitations as shown above.
Parlotto does not specifically disclose, but Vijayan however discloses:
wherein said system provides integrated ticketing solutions that facilitate seamless event access and participation (see at least paragraph 47 (a ticketing system that provides access in exchange for presentation of a user device containing a media wallet application in which a particular NFT is stored, where the ticketing system causes modification of the metadata of the NFT in response to presentation of the NFT);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize blockchain and non-fungible token for verifying ownership of digital asset event identifiers between parties executing the method of Parlotto with the motivation of enable users to securely store ticket event NFTs and/or other tokens on their devices and collect data concerning media consumed by users and aggregate the media consumption data in a permissioned analytics blockchain executing the method of Vijayan over that of Parlotto ( Vijayan abstract ).
Claim 7:
Parlotto discloses the limitations as shown above.
Parlotto does not specifically disclose, but Vijayan however discloses:
offering interactive fan experiences, engaging consumers with interactive content and experience ( see at least paragraphs 69-72; paragraph 70 ( content creators can utilize the content engagement platform to provide incentives to users to grant permissions to access content consumption data aggregated onto the permissioned analytics ledger by media wallet applications. In several embodiments, the incentives can be in the form of fungible tokens and/or additional NFTs) ;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize blockchain and non-fungible token for verifying ownership of digital asset event identifiers between parties executing the method of Parlotto with the motivation of allow an organization or a consortium of organizations to efficiently exchange information and record transactions executing the method of Vijayan over that of Parlotto (Vijayan paragraph 7 ).
Claims 6 and 13 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Parlotto et al, US Pub No: 2022/0414621 A1 in view of Otto 2009/0024481 A1
Claim 6:
Parlotto discloses the limitations as shown above.
Parlotto does not specifically disclose, but Otto however discloses:
offering code redemption, promotional codes and discounts to enhance value of interactions (see at least paragraph 87 (That is, the offers are "mystery" offers. In another embodiment, the recipient of offer 308 or offer 310 is required to log on to a website (not shown) associated with system 300 and enter a code provided with offer 308 or offer 310 to see what items or services can be redeemed for offer 308 or offer 310); paragraphs 126 (the coupons include a bar code or other identification means so that the coupon may be verified as being valid, accurate, not expired, not previously used or redeemed or any other terms and conditions, such as time of day, day of week or other possible restrictions or permissions; paragraph 135 (coupons are inscribed with one or more identification codes, for example a bar code); paragraph 101 (receive acceptance of coupon offer; receive end user ID; and store coupon offer with end user ID); paragraph 39 ( the offer element generates an appropriate order initiation offer responsive to whether an order has been placed previously using the WCD);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize brand loyalty rewards platforms executing the method of Parlotto with the motivation of maximize accounting controls, ensure proper coupon validation speed of service and ease of use executing the method of Otto over that of Parlotto (Otto paragraph 136 ).
Claim 13:
Parlotto discloses the limitations as shown above.
Parlotto does not specifically disclose, but Otto however discloses:
wherein said system creates higher margins and average order value (see at least paragraph 119 ( tracking report data on Coupon accept rates, average deal value, discount amounts, discount averages, Gross Margin, Offer Frequency, etc and Coupon redemption rates, average days to redemption, average check and average item counts with and without coupons. Gross margin, average check, average item counts for orders with and without accepts or coupons);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have utilize brand loyalty rewards platforms executing the method of Parlotto with the motivation of maximize accounting controls, ensure proper coupon validation speed of service and ease of use executing the method of Otto over that of Parlotto (Otto paragraph 136 ).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Steinart et al, US Pub No: system and method or managing a loyalty program via an association network infrastructure
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application 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.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622