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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Claims 12,6,12-13,16,18,20 have been amended.
Claim 5 has been canceled.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 05/05/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-4 and 6-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 :
Applicant argues that “ Without addressing the merits of the Office's allegation that the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One) it is respectfully asserted that they satisfy at least one, if not both, of Steps 2A, Prong Two and 2B under the Alice/Mayo test at least because, as amended, neither of claims 1 and 12 merely recites an abstract idea. Rather, each claim now recites specific, rule-based operations performed by a rewards server in a particular server-centered architecture, and those operations improve the functioning of the rewards server itself. In particular, independent claim 1 now defines retrieval of transaction history from a first memory of the rewards server, the first memory storing a relationship-mapping between users and identifiers, transaction histories associated with the first set of payment modes, and a mapping between transaction category codes and sustainable initiatives. Claim 1 further defines a specific analysis in which the rewards server determines that a transaction is linked with a transaction category code and, based on the stored mapping, detects that the transaction is associated with one of the sustainable initiatives. Even if one were to regard claim 1 at a high level as involving user targeting or donation activity, the claim does not merely recite that result. Rather, it is directed to a specific claimed process by which the rewards server performs the classification of stored electronic transaction data (page 8/16)”.
Examiner disagrees. retrieval of transaction history , storing a relationship-mapping between users and identifiers, transaction histories associated with the first set of payment modes, and a mapping between transaction category codes and sustainable initiatives and/ or determines that a transaction is linked with a transaction category code and, based on the stored mapping, detects that the transaction is associated with one of the sustainable initiatives is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). As thus, amended claim 1 fails to satisfy step 2A.
Additionally, In order for a claim to overcome a rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2, the purported improvement must be rooted in the “additional elements” of the claim in a manner other than merely applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components. “Additional elements” are defined as those elements of a claim that are not part of the abstract idea itself. The only “additional elements” in the claims are a server, comprising a memory which is a general-purpose computer with generic computer components that is used as a tool to merely apply the abstract idea. As such, the “additional elements” of the claim, whether considered individually or as a whole, are incapable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. Equally, the "additional elements" of the server and the memory are merely used as a tool to apply the abstract idea which is insufficient to be considered "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Therefore, amended claim 1 fails to satisfy both, of Steps 2A, Prong Two and 2B under the Alice/Mayo test.
Applicant argues that “independent Claim 12, as now amended it defines a coordinated two-server system architecture in which the rewards server and the first issuer server perform distinct, interrelated operations. In particular, the rewards server is configured to communicate a dataset of the second set of users to the first issuer server, receive from the first issuer server a first selection to donate rewards points, associate sustainable activities to expiring rewards points for respective users, provide at least one associated sustainable activity for each respective user to the first issuer server, and receive from the first issuer server a confirmation of donation. Claim 12 further defines that the first issuer server is configured to notify each of the second set of users on corresponding user devices, receive the first selection from at least one of those users, present the associated sustainable activities on the corresponding user device, and communicate the first selection and the confirmation of donation to the rewards server (page 9/16)”.
Examiner disagrees. communicate a dataset of the second set of users to the first issuer server, receive from the first issuer server a first selection to donate rewards points, associate sustainable activities to expiring rewards points for respective users, provide at least one associated sustainable activity for each respective user and receive from the first issuer server a confirmation of donation is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). As thus, amended claim 12 fails to satisfy step 2A.
Additionally, In order for a claim to overcome a rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2, the purported improvement must be rooted in the “additional elements” of the claim in a manner other than merely applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components. “Additional elements” are defined as those elements of a claim that are not part of the abstract idea itself. The only “additional elements” in the claims are two servers, which is a general-purpose computer with generic computer components that is used as a tool to merely apply the abstract idea. As such, the “additional elements” of the claim, whether considered individually or as a whole, are incapable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. Equally, the "additional elements" of the server and the memory are merely used as a tool to apply the abstract idea which is insufficient to be considered "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Therefore, amended claim 12 fails to satisfy both, of Steps 2A, Prong Two and 2B under the Alice/Mayo test.
Applicant argues that “Claim 18 further narrows the claim set by reciting that different users can receive different associated sustainable activities based on different available balances of rewards points. The claims therefore are not "directed to" an abstract idea under Step 2A, or, at minimum, they integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea
Examiner disagrees. reciting that different users can receive different associated sustainable activities based on different available balances of rewards points is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). As thus, amended claim 18 fails to satisfy step 2A.
Additionally, In order for a claim to overcome a rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2, the purported improvement must be rooted in the “additional elements” of the claim in a manner other than merely applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components. “Additional elements” are defined as those elements of a claim that are not part of the abstract idea itself. The only “additional elements” in the claims are two servers, which is a general-purpose computer with generic computer components that is used as a tool to merely apply the abstract idea. As such, the “additional elements” of the claim, whether considered individually or as a whole, are incapable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. Equally, the "additional elements" of the server and the memory are merely used as a tool to apply the abstract idea which is insufficient to be considered "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Therefore, amended claim 18 fails to satisfy both, of Steps 2A, Prong Two and 2B under the Alice/Mayo test. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-4, 6-20 under 35 USC § 101, is maintained.
Applicant argues that “The patent eligibility of the amended claims is supported by McRO, which teaches that automation can be patent-eligible when the claim recites the specific rules and ordered steps by which the computer performs the automation, rather than merely claiming the desired result. The claimed embodiments are analogous in that respect. The relevant problem here is not simply a human charitable preference problem. It is, in claim 1 embodiments, a machine-implemented transaction-classification problem arising from stored electronic transaction records, and the claimed embodiments solve it through a specific storage-and- mapping mechanism utilized in a particular way. And in claim 12 embodiments, problems arising from how to implement the rewards point donation program in an electronic system that comprises different servers and the personal devices of users are solved. By defining a particular solution to that problem, the rewards server (and therefore also the system as a whole) is improved (page 15/16)”.
Examiner disagrees. the McRO decision overcame 35 USC 101 under Step 2a, Prong 1 because they did not recite an abstract idea. While this makes an analysis under Step 2a, Prong 2 unnecessary, the court did find that the claims recite an improvement to a computer-related technology which is a consideration under Step 2a, Prong 2. Since, the claims did not recite an abstract idea, each and every limitation of the claim would be an "additional element" of the claim. The execution of these "additional elements" resulted in an improvement to a computer-related technology and, as such, would also overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2. In contrast, the claims of the instant invention do recite an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1. The only "additional elements" of the instant claims are a general-purpose computer with generic computer components executing software. Thus, the instant claims merely apply the abstract idea using the general-purpose computer with generic computer components which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application. Hence, the purported improvement of the instant claims is an improvement to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see the SAP V. Investpic decision and the Recentive Analytics decision). Thus, the rejections have been maintained. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-4, 6-20 under 35 USC § 101, is maintained.
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 1-4 and 6-20 are directed to a system and a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
providing, to each of a plurality of users who each have rewards points, a service application for installation on a respective one of a plurality of corresponding user ; identifying, from the plurality of users who each have rewards points, a targeted set of users and, for each targeted user of the targeted set of users, rewards points to be donated;
causing, the service application of each user of the targeted set of users to present, on a corresponding user device of the plurality of corresponding user devices, a notification to donate the identified rewards points of each user to at least one of a set of sustainable activities that are associated with a set of sustainable initiatives;
causing, by the service application of each user of the targeted set of users, the corresponding user of the plurality of corresponding user to receive a confirmation to donate to one or more of the set of sustainable activities, wherein identifying, the targeted set of users and, for each targeted user of the targeted set of users, rewards points to be donated comprises:
identifying, a first set of users from the plurality of users based on rewards points associated with a first set of payment modes, wherein the first set of payment modes is associated with the plurality of users, and wherein the rewards points associated with each respective one of the first set of users are set to expire after a first time period;
retrieving upon identifying the first set of users, a transaction history of at least one of the first set of users based on a first set of identifiers associated with the first set of payment modes associated with the at least one of the first set of users, the first memory storing a relationship-mapping between the plurality of users and the first set of identifiers,
storing transaction histories associated with the first set of payment modes, and storing a mapping between a plurality of transaction category codes and the set of sustainable initiatives;
initiating, an analysis of the transaction history of the at least one of the first set of users to detect that at least one transaction of the transaction history of the at least one of the first set of users is associated with the set of sustainable initiatives, wherein initiating the analysis comprises determining that the at least one transaction of the transaction history is linked with a transaction category code of the plurality of transaction category codes, and upon determining that the at least one transaction is linked with the transaction category code,
detecting that the at least one transaction is associated with one of the set of sustainable initiatives based on the mapping between the plurality of transaction category codes and the set of sustainable initiatives;
selecting as the targeted set of users, a second set of users from the first set of users, wherein the at least one transaction of the transaction history of each of the second set of users is detected to be associated with the set of sustainable initiatives;
wherein causing, the service application of each user of the targeted set of users to present, on the corresponding user device of the plurality of corresponding user, the notification to donate the identified rewards points of each user to at least one of the set of sustainable activities that are associated with the set of sustainable initiatives comprises: communicating, a dataset of the second set of users to a first issuer such that each of the second set of users is notified on the corresponding user device by the first issuer to donate the rewards points that are set to expire to at least one of a set of sustainable activities that are associated with the set of sustainable initiatives;
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” 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 a computer with one memory and configured to execute software instructions (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components) and a database (e.g. a generic computer component (e.g. (server, user interface, device and memory).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
retrieving upon identifying the first set of users, by the rewards server, a transaction history of at least one of the first set of users from a first memory of the rewards server based on a first set of identifiers associated with the first set of payment modes associated with the at least one of the first set of users, the first memory storing a relationship-mapping between the plurality of users and the first set of identifiers,
storing transaction histories associated with the first set of payment modes, and storing a mapping between a plurality of transaction category codes and the set of sustainable initiatives;
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. 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 one or more computers, or merely uses computers 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. “PEG” Revised 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 a computer with coupled to a memory and configured to execute software instructions, and a database (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer component (server, user interface, device and memory).
“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 one or more computers, 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 one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraph 136 of the applicant’s specification) and the affinity v Direct TV decision which states that a database is a generic computer component); 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.
Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
retrieving upon identifying the first set of users, by the rewards server, a transaction history of at least one of the first set of users from a first memory of the rewards server based on a first set of identifiers associated with the first set of payment modes associated with the at least one of the first set of users, the first memory storing a relationship-mapping between the plurality of users and the first set of identifiers,
storing transaction histories associated with the first set of payment modes, and storing a mapping between a plurality of transaction category codes and the set of sustainable initiatives;
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., “PEG” 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. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claim 12.
The dependent claims 2-4, 6-11, 13-20 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea, and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised 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. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-4, 6-20 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most relevant prior the examiner has found is:
Strock et al, US Pub No: 2011/0022448 A1, teaches A system and method for providing promotional rewards is provided. First, a promotional reward is communicated to a customer. The promotional reward offer comprises a promotional reward associated with one or more promotional reward-earning behaviors and a promotional time frame. The offer may specify a customer population, and the customer may be enrolled in the promotional reward program if the customer is determined to be in the population. The customer is credited a promotional reward if the customer accomplishes the promotional reward-earning behavior(s) within the promotional time frame. The customer may also be enrolled in a base reward program. The promotional rewards and base rewards may be accumulated in a customer account. A system for implementing a promotional rewards program is also provided.
Tietzen, US Pub No: 2022/0198479 A1, teaches Methods and systems for generating alerts or recommend incentives for a loyalty program that provides incentives to cardholders in connection with transactions between the cardholders and merchants are disclosed. A merchant is identified. Transaction data reflective of completed transactions are received by way of a network. The transaction data is processed to generate an alert notifying the identified merchant of an event or trend, or to generate a recommended incentive that defines a benefit to be provided by the identified merchant to a cardholder upon the occurrence of an anticipated transaction.
Ross et al, US Pub No: 2013/0054332 A1 teaches A computer system processes transaction data about a customer's purchase. The computer system may access green index data that includes information about environmentally green purchases for green purchases. Based on comparing the green index data and the transaction data, an award may be provided to the customer in accordance with at least one purchase criterion, such as the purchase price and/or the degree of greenness of the purchased item. The account data for the customer is consequently updated for the award. The green index data may be derived by obtaining a list of candidate merchants and by comparing characteristics of a candidate merchant with at least one green factor. The candidate merchant may then be included in the green index data when a merchant score is greater than a predetermined score, where the merchant score may be based on the green characteristics of the candidate merchant
However, the examiner has been unable to find prior art that discloses the claimed steps in the manner claimed. As thus, claims 1-4 and 6-20 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Mokm et al, US Pub No: 2014/0108114 A1, teaches A long term goal oriented commercial promotion system is disclosed. A user is enabled to set up a trust account on the system to accumulate the financial incentives under the condition of a long term goal. The long term goal includes supporting college education, supporting retirement, staring a business, or patenting an innovation. A user performance includes various commercial activities required by a merchant.
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
Prosecution Insights