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
1. This is a first non-final Office Action on the merits for application 18843236. Claims 1-6 are pending examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 6 is directed to software per se which is not statutory (In re Warmerdam, No. 93-1294 (Fed. Cir. August 11, 1994)). The examiner suggests redrafting the claim to embody the software program on a non-transitory computer readable medium. A claim to a computer-readable medium encoded with functional descriptive material that can function with a computer to effect a practical application that results in a useful, concrete and tangible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 1-6 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process). As such, claim 1, is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are drawn to a program. As such, claims 6, is/are not drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (please see rejection related to claim 6 above). For compact prosecution, the Examiner has assumed, that statutory category issue will be resolved, and have provided analysis under abstract idea.
Claims 1-6 are directed to granting the registered user collaboration points equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and the sale price within the range of the collaboration points cap. Specifically, claim(s) 1, and 6 recite(s) initiating user registration to a person or entity who has made a purchase transaction, granting a collaboration points cap thereto, storing information related to the transaction object of the purchase transaction conducted by the registered user who has completed the user registration, and when the registered user conducts a new sale transaction for the said transaction object and the sale price in the new sale transaction does not reach the purchase price at which the registered user purchased the transaction object, granting to the registered user collaboration points equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and the sale price, within the range of the collaboration points cap granted to the registered user, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
The Claim limitations are listed under Methods Of Organizing Human Activity, and grouped as following:
initiating user registration to a person or entity who has made a purchase transaction, granting a collaboration points cap thereto, storing information related to the transaction object of the purchase transaction conducted by the registered user who has completed the user registration, and which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
when the registered user conducts a new sale transaction for the said transaction object and the sale price in the new sale transaction does not reach the purchase price at which the registered user purchased the transaction object, granting to the registered user collaboration points equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and the sale price, within the range of the collaboration points cap granted to the registered user; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as computer merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the computer perform(s) the steps or functions of initiating user registration to a person or entity who has made a purchase transaction, granting a collaboration points cap thereto, storing information related to the transaction object of the purchase transaction conducted by the registered user who has completed the user registration, and when the registered user conducts a new sale transaction for the said transaction object and the sale price in the new sale transaction does not reach the purchase price at which the registered user purchased the transaction object, granting to the registered user collaboration points equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and the sale price, within the range of the collaboration points cap granted to the registered user. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out 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 or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), 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) and Vanda Memo). 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a computer to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of granting the registered user collaboration points equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and the sale price within the range of the collaboration points cap. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the computer perform(s) the steps or functions of initiating user registration to a person or entity who has made a purchase transaction, granting a collaboration points cap thereto, storing information related to the transaction object of the purchase transaction conducted by the registered user who has completed the user registration, and when the registered user conducts a new sale transaction for the said transaction object and the sale price in the new sale transaction does not reach the purchase price at which the registered user purchased the transaction object, granting to the registered user collaboration points equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and the sale price, within the range of the collaboration points cap granted to the registered user. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of granting the registered user collaboration points equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and the sale price within the range of the collaboration points cap. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-5 further describe the abstract idea of granting the registered user collaboration points equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and the sale price within the range of the collaboration points cap. Claim(s) 2-5 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a computer to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of granting the registered user collaboration points equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and the sale price within the range of the collaboration points cap. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the social networking server, electronic network perform(s) the steps or functions of wherein the granting of the collaboration points involves granting points equivalent to the difference within a specified grant period, and if the granting of collaboration points to the registered user within the specified grant period meets certain conditions, the right to grant collaboration points during the next set grant period is again given to the registered user; wherein the granting of the collaboration points is conditioned on the total amount of collaboration 1/3 points granted to the registered user within the specified grant period not exceeding the collaboration points cap, and if this condition is met for the registered user, the collaboration points cap is granted again to the registered user at the start of the next set grant period; wherein the registered user is allowed to select products to which the collaboration points are to be granted; wherein the collaboration points include digital currency. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of granting the registered user collaboration points equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and the sale price within the range of the collaboration points cap. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2-5 recite “A marketing method…". Examiner requests the phrase to be amended to “The marketing method…"”. Appropriate correction is required.
A. Claim 1, and 6 recite "the sale price” in line 7. Examiner request the phrase to be changed to “a sale price”.
B. Claim 1, and 6 recite "the purchase price” in line 8. Examiner request the phrase to be changed to “a purchase price”.
C. Claims 2-5 recites the limitation "A marketing method according to claim 1” in line 1. Examiner requests the phrase to be changed to “The marketing method according to claim 1”.
Prior Art
5. In reference to independent claims 1, and 6, the Office is unaware of any references that teach, individually or without an unreasonable combination of references, the combination of limitations steps found in the claims especially limitation that says: “when the registered user conducts a new sale transaction for the said transaction object and the sale price in the new sale transaction does not reach the purchase price at which the registered user purchased the transaction object, granting to the registered user collaboration points equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and the sale price, within the range of the collaboration points cap granted to the registered user”. No reference found that would teach the above limitation(s).
Art that is provided by the Applicant that is relevant: As for JP201357727A, the reference has features of the user buying an item and registering an account and store the purchase information for the product in an asset database and then sell the item for a value that is not below the purchased price. This reference does not teach the feature if the item is sold for less then the user gets points for the difference in price.
Relevant Prior Art found by the Examiner:
The most relevant prior art identified by the Examiner is KR101916266B1. It teaches current selling price of the purchased item purchased by the purchaser is lower than the amount purchase by the purchaser, then it calculates the sales price of the purchase amount and refunds the difference but it does not teach when the price of sale does not reach the original purchase price, it deducts points from the caped points that are found in the registered account and sends equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and sale price within the range of the collaboration points cap granted to the register user when the user registered the account. Therefore, it lacks the combination of claimed elements as claimed by the independent claims.
Another relevant prior art identified by the Examiner is 2010005004. It teaches refunding cash back to the seller if the item is sold for less than the purchase price, but it does not teach refunding points or reward points back to the seller if the selling price is less than the purchase price with a reward or point cap that does not exceed the value of the cap. Therefore, it lacks the combination of claimed elements as claimed by the independent claims.
Another relevant prior art identified by the Examiner is JP7714352B2. It teaches granting and transmitting information about points equivalent to the difference between purchase price and current price but does not teach when the price of sale does not reach the original purchase price, it deducts points from the caped points that are found in the registered account and sends equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and sale price within the range of the collaboration points cap granted to the register user when the user registered the account. Therefore, it lacks the combination of claimed elements as claimed by the independent claims.
JP5001481B2, 20070185769, and 20090326995 are relevant prior art but they don’t teach the concept of granting to the registered user collaboration points equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and the sale price, within the range of the collaboration points cap granted to the registered user.
Examiner notes: the user has to register an account to buy and sell items or objects and is granted collaboration points with a point cap, and then the user lists or put an item or object on the market to sell, and if the selling price is lower than the original purchased price then the system grants the points as the difference in price between the original purchased price and the final selling price without exceeding point cap.
As to the other limitations of the claim the closest reference found that is similar:
20190279245 teaches initiating user registration to a person or entity who has made a purchase transaction (abstract: facilitate the registration of the consumer in a merchant rewards program), (0006: receiving an indication to register the consumer data and registering the consumer data in the reward program), and (0054: providing the registration opportunity prior to completing the purchase transaction, the consumer may receive immediate credit for the current transaction in their rewards account.), and storing information related to the transaction object of the purchase transaction (“transaction data”) conducted by the registered user who has completed the user registration, and (0023: store merchant and consumer data, deal offering data, deal voucher data, transaction data, redemption data, and/or reward data), and (0030: Memory 204 may be configured to store information, data (including deal parameter data, transaction data, and/or analytics data), but does not teach the combination of the above limitation with granting a collaboration points cap thereto.
All these references listed above teaches some of the features in the limitations of the claim but when combining it becomes not obvious and the references would teach the claim as a whole.
Examiner note: none of the references or combined references teach the combination of limitations of claim 1, and 6 or no reference found that would teaches the combination of limitations of claim 1, and 6, especially claim limitations: when the registered user conducts a new sale transaction for the said transaction object and the sale price in the new sale transaction does not reach the purchase price at which the registered user purchased the transaction object, granting to the registered user collaboration points equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and the sale price, within the range of the collaboration points cap granted to the registered user, and which is an idea of user buys a product and accumulate 10000 points. If the user sells it and does not reach the original purchase price then some of the 10000 points are credited to the users account to reach the original price.
When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
NPL Reference
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The NPL “Marketing and sales” describes “Marketing takes time, money, and preparation. One of the best ways to stay on schedule and on budget is to make a marketing plan. It describes the actions you’ll take to persuade potential customers to buy your products or services. Most marketing plans cover these topics. As always, use what works best for your business. Describe your audience in detail. Look at the market’s size, demographics, unique traits, and trends that relate to demand for your business. Describe what gives your product or service an advantage over the competition. It might be a better product, a lower price, or an excellent customer experience. Sometimes, an environmentally friendly certification or “made in the USA” on your label can be an important factor for customers. Describe how you’ll literally sell your service or product to your customers. List the sales methods you’ll use, like retail, wholesale, or your own online store. Explain each step your customer takes once they decide to buy.”.
Pertinent Art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference# 20100010887 teaches similar invention which describes Consumer Reward: In one embodiment, the system can provide a cross-merchant (semi-open transaction loop), registered consumer reward program sponsored by the service provider. For example, for each qualified purchase transaction, the registered consumer who makes a purchase from the merchant affiliate receives a reward in monetary value, which is a portion of the commission fee that the service provider receives from the selling merchant affiliate. The service provider can alternatively elect to implement the registered consumer reward program in an open loop model (where reward proceeds are spent out of the network), a semi open loop model (where reward proceeds are used for future in-network purchases, regardless which network merchant affiliate the registered consumer buys from), and/or a closed-loop model (where a reward proceed can be spent toward future purchases from the issuing merchant affiliate). In one open-loop reward program, the service provider creates an account for each registered consumer, and adds monetary value of the reward to the registered consumer account once a reward is issued to the registered consumer. Upon instructions from a registered consumer, the service provider can transfer the amount of monetary value from the registered consumer's reward account to the registered consumer himself or to a third-party account designated by the registered consumer. For example, the accumulated reward can be wired to a deposit account of the registered consumer in a bank at one time or on a regular basis. In another example, the accumulated reward can be applied to a subscription service to receive more offers from the ad publisher. In addition to per-transaction rewarding, the system can also use a mechanism to further incrementally reward those registered consumers who have made large numbers of transactions over a period of time. The service provider can define a system of reward levels, for example, each with a different reward percentage that is the percentage of the service fee the service provider passes to the buying registered consumer at that reward level. In this example, the higher the purchasing level.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAREK ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (571) 272-9638. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex Mon - Thur 7-7:00 and Fri 7-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/TAREK ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621B