DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) filed on November 8, 2024, February 10, 2025 and August 11, 2025 have been acknowledged.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed toward at least one abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below:
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a method, claim 12 is directed towards a system, claim 19 is directed towards a system, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim is nonetheless, directed toward an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth this abstract idea recite: receive a receiving message; identify a compensation message that: has a reply compensation deadline time that is greater than or equal to message time; and a recipient of said receiving message is the same as a sender of said compensation message; adjust a compensation amount based on a difference between said reply compensation deadline time and said receiving message time; generate payment transaction data, wherein said payment transaction data includes recipient identification information and compensation amount; transmit said payment transaction data to a payment processor; and trigger a monetary compensation to a recipient of said compensation message; wherein said computer-implemented method includes capabilities for factoring the time value of money and/or for sorting messages in different ways to help are a recipient determine maximum profitability in a given amount of time. These limitations, comprise commercial interactions including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations; managing personal behavior or interactions between people including following rules or instructions. And are thus, directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim amount to the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In particular the claim recites the additional elements: an electronic receiving; in a system database; an electronic receiving; an electronic receiving; an electronic receiving, which are recited at a high level of generality are the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply applying the abstract idea by a computer, is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the 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 claim only recites additional limitations that uses the computer to apply the abstract idea. Viewing the limitations individually, the limitations generically referring to an electronic receiving message, database, a storage medium, a server (claims 12, 19), do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the additional elements amount to no more than merely applying the exception using generic computer components, executing basic functions of a computer. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
An analysis of dependent claims 2-11, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above as they do not add any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. While they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 12-20 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 1-11 and are also rejected accordingly.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delancey (US Publication 2020/0322298) in view of Orwant (US Publication 2005/0227711) in further view of Kamakura (US Patent 6076101).
A. In regards to Claims 1, 12 and 19, Delancey teaches, computer-implemented method, system and system comprising: using machine readable instructions to:
connecting to a messaging service; Delancy [0022];
receive an electronic receiving message; Delancey [0022];
identify in a system database a compensation message that:
(i) has a reply compensation deadline time that is greater than or equal to an electronic receiving message time; Delancey [0005: server includes a database including a message table having a plurality of message records; 0073: the compensation message record functions as the compensation message; 0058: message table includes a plurality of data fields including, for example, and without limitation, at least a field for the Message ID, Sender ID, Recipient ID, Message Date/Time, Message Text, Reply Compensation Value, Reply Deadline, Scaling Deadline Value, and Reply Message ID; 0078: if the Message Date/Time data field of the reply message record is less than or equal to the Reply Deadline data field of the previous message record, such as the compensation message record, the message module updates the Reply Message ID data field of the compensation message record];
adjust a compensation amount based on a difference between said reply compensation deadline time and said electronic receiving message time; Delancey [0079: reply compensation value is determined by the Reply Compensation Value data field of the compensation message record and the reply message date/time relative to the deadline provided];
generate payment transaction data, wherein said payment transaction data includes recipient identification information and compensation amount; Delancey [0080: compensation determination module, transmits payment transaction data to the payment processor including, for example, payment receiver identification, and compensation amount];
transmit said payment transaction data to a payment processor; Delancey [0043: provide the payment transaction data to the payment processor];
and trigger a monetary compensation to a recipient of said compensation message; Delancey [0086: compensation determination module calculates the reply compensation amount owed to the recipient using, for example a diminishing value function. In the exemplary embodiment, the diminishing value function is a linear regression function. In an example illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 6, the compensation message record R1 includes a reply compensation value of $100 (“CVR1”) and a scaling deadline value of $0.00 (“DVR1”);
Delancey discloses a database pertaining to a plurality of compensation messages, but does not specifically disclose, a recipient of said electronic receiving message is the same as a sender of said compensation message; this is disclosed by Orwant [0101: sender uses menus displayed on the sending device to create these components (messages), in a manner which is readily apparent to anyone with ordinary skill in the art, and the server stores the message in a Table; 0036: the same person can be both the intended recipient and the sender];
it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Delancey with the teachings from Orwant with the motivation to a provide an electronic communications system servicing a plurality of users for enabling any sender who is a user to automatically deliver a message electronically to an intended recipient who is also a user, based on the tracked position of a specified mobile object, including processing and storing message data provided by the sender, tracking the position of the specified mobile object, and automatically delivering a message electronically to the intended recipient. Orwant [0018];
Delancey does not specifically disclose, wherein said computer-implemented method includes capabilities for factoring the time value of money and/or for sorting messages in different ways to help a recipient determine maximum profitability in a given amount of time; this is disclosed by Kamakura [Col 6 Ln 20-22: message sending process starts with placing a maximum earning point value to the first part of the e-mail's subject line; Col 7 Ln 59-64: the received message is ascertained to be the first reply from the recipient concerning the direct mail in process, the point calculation unit 35 updates the recipient information table by newly registering the parameter "POINT AWARDING JOB ID" and assigning the earning point value calculated in step S34; Col 8 Ln 15-23: Since it is determined in step S38 that the new earning point value calculated at this time is larger than the past earning point value recorded, the point calculation unit now understands that it has received a valid reply message that is worth adding the bonus points. Then it updates the past earning point value "EARNING POINTS" with the new earning point value calculated in step S34 plus the past earning point value, which means an increase in the balance of the recipient's bonus point account]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Delancey with the teachings from Kamakura with the motivation to provide an electronic message processing system that encourages the recipients to open, read, and reply to the e-mail message from the sender. Kamakura [Col 1 Ln 58-60].
B. In regards to Claims 2, 13 and 20, Delancey discloses, further including alerts and/or messages said recipient with information and details regarding said compensation message and/or a sender. Delancey [0075: recipient may be presented with the sender information (e.g., name, etc.), the reply compensation value].
C. In regards to Claim 3, Delancey discloses, wherein said recipient of said electronic receiving message and said recipient of said compensation message are different. Delancey [0028: a user, (the “sender”), participates in the message service by recording an electronic message, selecting one or more other users of the messaging service to receive the recorded message; 0073: message server receives from the sender input data associated with a compensation message the sender wishes to send to one or more recipients via the message server].
D. In regards to Claim 4, Delancey discloses, further comprising creating a message record, said message record comprising a field for each of a compensation history associated with said compensation message, said compensation history including a message identifier, a message content, a deadline, a deadline amount value, a file name, and a compensation adjustment function. Delancey [0076: the message module identifies the incoming reply message and writes a reply message record to the message table. For example, the message server collects a message ID (e.g., allocated by the message server), sender ID, recipient ID, message date/time, message text and/or message datafile pointer, and optionally, a reply compensation value and reply deadline. If a reply compensation value and reply deadline are collected, the message server may optionally collect a scaling deadline value from the recipient as well; 0043: the compensation determination module may be configured to write the payment transaction data to a historical data file];
E. In regards to Claim 5, Delancey discloses, further comprising creating a message record comprising a deadline amount value. Delancey [0063: when a user records a compensation message, the user inputs a reply compensation value, a reply deadline, and optionally, a deadline value. The deadline value operates as an indication that the reply compensation value is scaled with respect to time].
F. In regards to Claim 6, Delancey discloses, further comprising creating a message record comprising a deadline. Delancey [0041: compensation message is associated with a reply compensation value and reply deadline. As described further herein, the reply compensation value can be a fixed value, payable in full to a user that replies to the compensation message at any time before or equal to the reply deadline, or a variable value that decreases as the reply deadline approaches].
G. In regards to Claim 7, Delancey discloses, further comprising creating a message record comprising a payment indicator indicating a payment between said recipient of said electronic receiving message and a recipient of said compensation message. Delancey [0041: compensation message is associated with a reply compensation value and reply deadline. As described further herein, the reply compensation value can be a fixed value, payable in full to a user that replies to the compensation message at any time before or equal to the reply deadline, or a variable value that decreases as the reply deadline approaches].
H. In regards to Claim 8, Delancey discloses, further comprising creating a message record comprising a payment indicator indicating a payment between said recipient of said electronic receiving message and a recipient of said compensation message based on an adjustable payment function. Delancey [0028: based on the time of the reply and the reply compensation value, the messaging service system determines a total reply compensation amount owed to the recipient and provides payment transaction data to the payment processor to process the transaction between the sender and the recipient].
I. In regards to Claim 9, Delancey discloses, wherein said electronic receiving message time is associated with a time said electronic receiving message is received at a computer. Delancey [0076: if the recipient replies to the compensation message, the message module identifies the incoming reply message (e.g., a reply message request) and writes a reply message record to the message table. For example, the message server collects a message ID, sender ID, recipient ID, message date/time (e.g., from an internal clock of the message server 14)].
J. In regards to Claim 10, Delancey discloses, wherein said electronic receiving message time is associated with a time said electronic receiving message is received at a computer and saved in a database. Delancey [0062: the date and time that the message is recorded is entered into the message Date/Time data field].
K. In regards to Claim 11, Delancey discloses, wherein said electronic receiving message time is a time said electronic receiving message is sent by a recipient of said compensation message. Delancey [0062: the date and time that the message is generated is entered into the message Date/Time data field]
L. In regards to Claim 14, Delancey discloses, wherein said computer program further sends the adjusted compensation value to said system user who sent said electronic receiving message. Delancey [0028: based on the time of the reply and the reply compensation value, the messaging service system determines a total reply compensation amount owed to the recipient and provides payment transaction data to the payment processor to process the transaction between the sender and the recipient].
M. In regards to Claim 15, Delancey does not specifically disclose, wherein said computer program further verifies that the recipient of said electronic receiving message is the same as the sender of said associated compensation message. This is disclosed by Orwant [0036: the same person can be both the intended recipient and the sender]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 1.
N. In regards to Claim 16, Delancey discloses wherein said database further stores a message record for each system user. Delancey [0028: messaging service system notifies each of the users selected to receive the recorded message that they have a message waiting for them to open].
O. In regards to Claim 17, Delancey discloses wherein said message record includes a payment indicator. Delancey [0043: compensation determination module is configured to provide the payment transaction data to the payment processor upon receipt of a reply message to which compensation is owed].
P. In regards to Claim 18, Delancey discloses, the time said electronic receiving message is received is the time said electronic receiving message is saved in said database. Delancey [0062: the date and time that the message is recorded is entered into the message Date/Time data field].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571) 272-9987. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).