Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/784,713

SYSTEM, METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIA FOR PROVIDING REFERRALS

Non-Final OA §101§103
Filed
Jul 25, 2024
Examiner
SHORTER, RASHIDA R
Art Unit
3626
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
18%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
44%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 18% of cases
18%
Career Allow Rate
54 granted / 299 resolved
-33.9% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
339
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
43.4%
+3.4% vs TC avg
§103
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
§102
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
§112
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 299 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §103
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 application filed on July 25, 2024 Claim 1 is currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 31, 2024 and July 25, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “and” is repeated twice. See “a hosting unit coupled to the profile management unit and the communications unit, the processing device of the server configured to implement a first algorithm and and a second algorithm using the profile management unit, the communications unit, and the hosting unit, the first algorithm implementing the steps of…” Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus. As such, claim 1 is drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES). Step 2A - Prong One: Claim 1 recites the following steps: a referral service accessible to a user, the referral service and configured to be accessed by a business user associated with a business; to store a plurality of referrals provided by the user in a user account associated with the user and stored, send and receive messages to the user; and implement a first algorithm and and a second algorithm the first algorithm implementing the steps of: allowing the business user to access the profile allowing the business user to register the business allowing the business information to enter information related to the business storing the information related to the business in a business profile the second algorithm implementing the steps of: in response to an interaction between the business and the user, allowing the business user to send user identifying information comparing, the user identifying information with information related to the user stored in the user account, if the user identifying information matches the information stored in the user account: sending, the user a message comprising a request to complete a single step to provide a new referral for the business in a specified category of goods or services, wherein the single step comprises providing a response selected from not more than two available response options, in response to receive an affirmative response from the user, send the new referral to for storage in the user account stored. These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mathematical relationships; first and second algorithms. These limitations therefore fall within the “mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) providing a request for a customer to complete referrals (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES). Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of: A system comprising: a database stored on a server; a referral application associated with and installed on a user device, wherein the user device includes a user interface; a referral request page associated with and a processing device of the server, wherein the processing device is in communication with the user device, the processing device including: a profile management unit a communications unit coupled to the profile management unit a hosting unit coupled to the profile management unit and the communications unit, The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) above also serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO). Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). As discussed above in “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) above also serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more5' (see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)). The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO). 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutri (2013/0254289) in view of Calabria (2008/0021729) and Young (2014/0258309). Claim 1 Cutri discloses a system comprising: a database stored on a server (Cutri [0038]); See at least “Servers may include one or more search engines, database servers, index servers, chat servers, video servers, media servers, billing servers, storage servers, multipurpose servers, any other suitable specific use servers, any other suitable general purpose servers, or any combination thereof.” a referral application associated with a referral service and installed on a user device accessible to a user, wherein the user device includes a user interface (Cutri [0024]) See at least “In some embodiments, the system may be available on a user device by a standalone application.” a referral request page associated with the referral service and configured to be accessed by a business user associated with a business; and a processing device of the server, wherein the processing device is in communication with the user device, the processing device including (Cutri [Figure 3]); a profile management unit configured to store a plurality of referrals provided by the user in a user account associated with the user and stored in the database (Cutri [0020]); See at least “Users may create a Profile page containing information about themselves, for example, name, location, interests, and previous referrals.” a communications unit coupled to the profile management unit and configured to send and receive messages from profile management unit to the user (Cutri [0020]); See at least “Users may create a Profile page containing information about themselves, for example, name, location, interests, and previous referrals….In some embodiments, the first user may invite the second user to a friendship by sending them a message (e.g., email, chat, text message)…. External invitations may include emails, text messages, messages on other social networks ( e.g., Facebook), any other suitable contact information, or any combination thereof.” allowing the business user to access the profile management unit using the referral request page and the hosting unit (Cutri [0020]); See at least “Users may create a Profile page containing information about themselves, for example, name, location, interests, and previous referrals.” allowing the business user to register the business with profile management unit (Cutri [0051][Figure 5]); See at least “Category 404 may include the category or title description of the requested service.” allowing the business information to enter information related to the business using the referral request page and storing the information related to the business in a business profile in the database, (Cutri [0057]); See at least “Refer page 500 may include sections to receive input information related to a referred service provider. Category box 508 may receive information to categorize the service provider.” Cutri does not explicitly disclose the matching user information with stored user data. Calabria teaches: a hosting unit coupled to the profile management unit and the communications unit, the processing device of the server configured to implement a first algorithm and and a second algorithm using the profile management unit, the communications unit, and the hosting unit, the first algorithm implementing the steps of (Calabria [0116]); the second algorithm implementing the steps of: in response to an interaction between the business and the user, allowing the business user to send user identifying information to the profile management unit via the referral request page, comparing, by the profile management unit, the user identifying information with information related to the user stored in the user account in the database (Calabria [0058]); See at least “When that customer writes the review, the review-provider can then verify that the customer's name matches the name that was provided (and explicitly authorized) by the subject-owner to write the review. Matching can be done within the system 10 using any number of "fuzzy logic" techniques that match a customer's name or other non-precise identifiers, including multiple such identifiers.” if the user identifying information matches the information stored in the user account (Calabria [0059]); sending, by the communications unit, the user a message comprising a request to complete a single step to provide a new referral for the business in a specified category of goods or services (Calabria [0005]), See at least The system is also designed to allow true user-friendly solicitation of reviews by any merchant…” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of requesting referrals, as taught by Cutri, matching user identifying information with stored information, as taught by Calabria, to verify a customer who has made a bona-fide purchase from that subject-owner (Calabria [0058]). Neither reference teaches selectable options for referrals. Young teaches: wherein the single step comprises providing a response selected from not more than two available response options (Young [0019]) See at least “The Recommendation component may be a Yes/No indicating whether or not the person recommends the entity being reviewed.” in response to receive an affirmative response from the user, send the new referral to the profile management unit for storage in the user account stored in the database (Young [0112]). See at least “After a user 30 saves their restaurant review 360, or updates their existing review 360…These data elements may be stored in a database of the social review system.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of requesting referrals, as taught by Cutri and Calabria, selectable options for the positive or negative review, as taught by Young, to make reviews easier to find positive recommendations (Young [0013]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm. 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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. /RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 25, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12579555
SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF AUDIENCE EXPANSION USING DEEP AUTOENCODERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12561698
DETECTING POTENTIALLY NON-COMPLIANT SHORT-LIVED ASSETS IN A COMPUTING PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12475436
INCLUSIVE PRODUCT DESIGN
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Patent 12475470
VERIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION OF ROBOTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Patent 12361443
SYSTEM THAT ACTIVATES MONETIZATION AND APPLIES A PAYMENT METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 15, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
18%
Grant Probability
44%
With Interview (+26.2%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 299 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month