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 .
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.
The claims herein are directed to a method and system 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). Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claim 1, 8, and 15
obtaining a plurality of required information of a first customer to complete a purchase of a first product;
generating automatically a profile unique to the first customer using the required information of the first customer after completion of the purchase of the first product;
generating automatically a QR code that links to the profile of the first customer, wherein the QR code is applied to the first product, physically or digitally; and
incentivizing the first customer for promoting the first product by causing a potential customer to scan the QR code of the first product and be directed to a web URL linked to the QR code.
The limitations of independent claim 1, 8 and 15, as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)because the claims disclose creating a profile based on purchase information, creating a QR code that links to the profile and incentivizing customers for promoting products by scanning of a QR code that directs the customer to a website.. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of using computing device, processor, computer readable storage medium. The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of obtaining, generating, and incentivizing such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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. The claims 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 additional element of computing device, processor, computer readable storage medium, to obtaining, generating, and incentivizing … amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. 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.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Furthermore in regards to claims 15-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories because they are directed to a signal per se. Claim 15 is drawn to a computer readable storage medium. However, the computer readable storage medium, in accordance with a broadest reasonable interpretation, may be interpreted as being drawn to a transitory embodiment, and thus directed to non-statutory subject matter (e.g., transitory propagating signal). See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). In further support of interpreting the computer readable medium as being drawn to non-statutory embodiments, it is pointed out that Applicant's Specification, in at least [0062] states, “The computer-usable medium may include a propagated data signal with the computer-usable program code embodied therewith, either in baseband or as part of a carrier wave.”, includes non-statutory embodiments by disclosing that the computer program product is stored on a computer readable medium or carrier wave, without expressly limiting the medium to a non-transitory embodiment. A claim drawn to subject matter that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation 'non-transitory' before 'computer-useable' to the claim. See Patent and Trademark Office Notice: Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, Page 1351, OFFICIAL GAZETTE of the UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 212. Also see Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation 'non-human' to a claim covering a multicellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101). The Office recommends amending this claim to recite the term 'non-transitory' so that the scope of these claims is only limited to non-transitory computer readable media. See also U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibliity Under 35 USC § 101 (August 2012 Update) (pp. 11-14), available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/101_training_aug2012.pdf (noting that while the recitation “non-transitory” is a viable option for overcoming the presumption that those media encompass signals or carrier waves, merely indicating that such media are “physical” or “tangible” will not overcome such presumption).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Killoran (20140032285) in view of Glazier et al. (US 2022/0300998)
Claim 1, 8, 15: Killoran discloses a computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising:
generating automatically a profile unique to the first customer using the required information of the first customer after completion of the purchase of the first product; ([0067 and 0068’the order is complete and if not a member they will then be listed as a member. [0067] discloses that a member has a consumer profile)) but does not explicitly disclose generating automatically a QR code that links to the profile of the first customer, wherein the QR code is applied to the first product, physically or digitally; obtaining a plurality of required information of a first customer to complete a purchase of a first product; incentivizing the first customer for promoting the first product by causing a potential customer to scan the QR code of the first product and be directed to a web URL linked to the QR code. However Glazier discloses generating automatically a QR code that links to the profile of the first customer, wherein the QR code is applied to the first product, physically or digitally;. [0030], enables the referring user, while on a web page, to select the URL or other indicator of such web page, and create a referral link to that page which may include an identifier of the referring user, so that the referral may be tracked, and enable the referring user to insert this referral link into a digital communication. And [0031] may contain or may lead to a coupon for a product or service, instead of or in addition to a link to a site. The coupon may be for example in the form of a code, a printable document, a UPC code, a QR code, a promotional code, a ticket, an image, or another identifier. obtaining a plurality of required information of a first customer to complete a purchase of a first product; ([0047], The system may have a payment methods database that includes one or more payment methods associated with a user. Each payment method may include one or more of a credit card, a debit card, a gift card, a digital wallet, a funds transfer service, a debt financing product, an installment payment service, a bank account. Each payment method may also include user checkout information that may include one or more of a name, a user identifier, an address, a billing address, a shipping address, a phone number, an email address, a password, an expiration date, a security code.)
incentivizing the first customer for promoting the first product by causing a potential customer to scan the QR code of the first product and be directed to a web URL linked to the QR code( [0031] In one or more embodiments, a referral link may be, may contain or may lead to a coupon for a product or service, instead of or in addition to a link to a site. The coupon may be for example in the form of a code, a printable document, a UPC code, a QR code, a promotional code, a ticket, an image, or another identifier. The recipient may use the coupon for example for either online or offline transactions; in an offline transaction, the recipient may for example transact with a via an interaction which does not get tracked via a link to a site. [0035], referral link may link to a website, brand, product, etc., [0046] When the referral matcher finds a match between application user interface content and an entry in the referral database, it may present a share and earn option to the user. When the user selects this option, the referral manager may present a sharing menu to the user with one or more sharing methods to share the referral link, such as email, text message, and social media sites or services. It may also present a cash back option to the user that generates the referral link and redirects the application to that link, thereby effectively letting the user use the referral link himself or herself. [0106] User 121 may then interact with site 202 to purchase goods or services or perform other transactions. When the user completes a transaction, for example using button 203, referral tracker 210 receives this information and credits the referring user with the successful referral. Also see [0120
Both Killoran and Glazier teach a method of e-commerce. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Killoran and Glazier because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Claim 2, 9, 16: Killoran discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving an order confirmation email after the first product purchase, wherein the order confirmation email includes at least a login information for the profile of the first customer and wherein the first customer is able to share at least one of the web URL and the QR code within a network of the first customer. [0023 and 0033]
Claim 3, 10, 17: Killoran discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the QR code is unique to the first customer and is automatically applied onto the first product when produced.[0064 and 0065]
Claim 4, 11, 18: Killoran discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising delivering the first product with the applied QR code to the first customer. [0065]
Claim 5, 12, 19: Killoran discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein incentivizing the first customer for promoting the first product by causing the potential customer to scan the QR code of the first product and be directed to the web URL linked to the QR code includes: scanning the QR code on the first product of the first customer by the potential customer. However Glazier discloses wherein incentivizing the first customer for promoting the first product by causing the potential customer to scan the QR code of the first product and be directed to the web URL linked to the QR code includes: scanning the QR code on the first product of the first customer by the potential customer.[0120,0133]
Both Killoran and Glazier teach a method of e-commerce. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Killoran and Glazier because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Claim 7: Killoran discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose wherein incentivizing the first customer for promoting the first product by causing the potential customer to scan the QR code of the first product and be directed to the web URL linked to the QR code includes: receiving an incentive by the first customer on the potential customer using the QR code of the first customer.
However Glazier discloses wherein disclose wherein incentivizing the first customer for promoting the first product by causing the potential customer to scan the QR code of the first product and be directed to the web URL linked to the QR code includes: receiving an incentive by the first customer on the potential customer using the QR code of the first customer. [0018 and 0120]
Both Killoran and Glazier teach a method of e-commerce. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Killoran and Glazier because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Killoran (20140032285) in view of Glazier et al. (US 2022/0300998) in further view of Ziegler (US 2012/0085828)
Claim 6, 13, 20: Killoran discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose wherein incentivizing the first customer for promoting the first product by causing the potential customer to scan the QR code of the first product and be directed to the web URL linked to the QR code includes: directing the potential customer to the profile of the first customer to view and purchase at least one of the first product or a second product entirely different from the first product. However Ziegler discloses wherein incentivizing the first customer for promoting the first product by causing the potential customer to scan the QR code of the first product and be directed to the web URL linked to the QR code includes: directing the potential customer to the profile of the first customer to view and purchase at least one of the first product or a second product entirely different from the first product.[0009, 0011 and 0015]
Both Killoran and Ziegler teach a method of e-commerce. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Killoran and Ziegler because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marcus - (US 2016/0104189) - [0009] In an aspect of the invention, a secure digital receipt system may include a receipts server in communication with a point-of-sale that prepares a secure digital receipt comprising an unalterable digital mark, associating the secure digital receipt with a user identification, and a communications facility that delivers the secure digital receipt to a user. The unalterable digital mark may prevent at least one of alteration, counterfeiting or duplication of the secure digital receipt. The unalterable digital mark is at least one of a bar code, QR code, or image. The unalterable digital mark may encode information including user ID, encryption device or image, encoded text, and a date. The user identification may include at least one of a unique sender ID, an email address and a mobile phone number. Another form of ID including at least one of a fingerprint, eye scan, facial recognition and password may be required to verify the identity of the user possessing the secure digital receipt.
Custer – (US 2014/0222624) - A system for leveraging email to complete an online checkout from a customer accessing a third party vendor website is disclosed. The system may store customer information including a name, email address, shipping address, and billing information. The system may receive a request for a purchase from the third party vendor including a customer email address and an item to be purchased. The system may authenticate the customer email address. The system may send a first email to the customer email address requesting authorization to complete a purchase. The system may receive a second email, from the customer email address, encoded with the token and confirming or canceling the purchase. The system may authenticate the second email using the customer email address and the token. And the system may transmit a confirmation of purchase of the at least one item to the third party vendor website.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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, 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 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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights