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
This communication is in response to application No. 18/960,051, filed on 11/26/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-20 have been rejected as follow,
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 8, 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8,15 of Patent No. 12,169,848. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 2, 9,16, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 9,16 of Patent No. 12,169,848. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 3, 10, 17, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 10, 17 of Patent No. 12,169,848. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 4, 11, 18, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 11,18 of Patent No. 12,169,848. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 5, 12, 19, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 12, 19 of Patent No. 12,169,848. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 6, 13, 20, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 13, 20 of Patent No. 12,169,848. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claims 7, 14, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7,14 of Patent No. 12,169,848. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claims under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claims 6, 13 and 20, the claims recite the term “second threshold value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear where or what is the first threshold value. It is confusing. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are not compliant with 101, according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). The claims has been amended and Examiner’s analysis is presented below for all the claims.
Claim 1: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim? Yes. The claim recites the limitations of “determining, ….an interaction value of the search criteria …., the interaction value quantifying a first number of interactions across websites or advertisements …., and the first number of interactions across the websites or advertisements being related to searches for the item type or the product; determining, … a cost per views value of the search criteria, the cost per views value quantifying a second number of interactions across websites or advertisements …, and the second number of interactions across the websites or advertisements being related based on the item type or the product; when the interaction value plus the cost per views value exceeds a threshold value, computing a dynamic cashback amount associated with the search criteria, the dynamic cashback amount being stored in an aggregation revenue pool of funds associated with an advertiser marketplace”.
The “determining, computing” limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The method of predicting future interactions with devices. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional limitations, such as,
“receiving…. search criteria for an item type or a product; transmitting,…. that includes the dynamic cashback amount, a predetermined period of time to initiate a transaction for the product, and an identifier associated with the product; and when the identifier associated with the product is received in association with the transaction of the product within the predetermined of time, transferring, …., the dynamic cashback amount from the aggregation revenue pool of funds to a digital wallet of the consumer user”. These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data (gathering data).
The Examiner analyses other supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure:
“by a connection and communication platform from a consumer user device”; “for the consumer user device”, “an electronic communication”. These elements are recited in a very generic way.
The Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above elements. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Thus, the claim is ineligible because is directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim,
“by a connection and communication platform from a consumer user device”; “for the consumer user device”, “an electronic communication”, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware and software cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the limitations:
“by a connection and communication platform from a consumer user device”; “for the consumer user device”, “an electronic communication”, were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Other limitations in the claim, such as:
“receiving…. search criteria for an item type or a product; transmitting,…. that includes the dynamic cashback amount, a predetermined period of time to initiate a transaction for the product, and an identifier associated with the product; and when the identifier associated with the product is received in association with the transaction of the product within the predetermined of time, transferring, … the dynamic cashback amount from the aggregation revenue pool of funds to a digital wallet of the consumer user”. These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data (gathering data). Accessing data is very well understood, routine and conventional computer task activity; It represents insignificant extra solution activity. Mere data-gathering step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstaturory claim statutory In re Grams,888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Further, the instant specification does not provide any indication that the elements
“by a connection and communication platform from a consumer user device”; “for the consumer user device”, “an electronic communication”, were are anything other than generic software and hardware, and the OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); and v. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely computer receives and sends information over a network and presenting or displaying information, is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “by a connection and communication platform from a consumer user device”; “for the consumer user device”, “an electronic communication”, limitations (pointed above) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 8: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a communication platform (Examiner interprets as a system).
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
In addition the Examiner analyses supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure:
“a memory, a processor”. The Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation. The additional elements in the claim are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 15: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20, the claims recite elements such as
“wherein the advertiser marketplace comprises a distributed computing environment, blockchain, mesh network, or other specialized, real-time communication system that communicatively connects a set of advertiser user devices”, “wherein the search criteria for the item type or the product is associated with a search initiated by a consumer user at the consumer user device”, etc. These elements do not integrate the system of organizing human activity into a practical application. The claims are ineligible.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pg. Pub. No. 20120303425 (Katzin) in view of US Pg. Pub. No. 20070239560 (McGuire).
Examiner’s note: in this Office action when mapping claimed limitations versus prior art, the use of square brackets and italic font in the claimed limitation […] indicate that the first reference does not teach that part of the claimed limitation.
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, Katzin discloses a computer-implemented method (Figs. 1A-B) comprising:
a) receiving, by a connection and communication platform from a consumer user device of a consumer user (Fig. 1A), , search criteria for an item type or a product;
(“[0361] FIGS. 39A-G show user interface diagrams illustrating example features of virtual wallet applications in a shopping mode, in some embodiments of the MCB-Platform. With reference to FIG. 39A, some embodiments of the virtual wallet mobile app facilitate and greatly enhance the shopping experience of consumers. A variety of shopping modes, as shown in FIG. 39A, may be available for a consumer to peruse. In one implementation, for example, a user may launch the shopping mode by selecting the shop icon 3910 at the bottom of the user interface. A user may type in an item in the search field 3912 to search and/or add an item to a cart 3911. A user may also use a voice activated shopping mode by saying the name or description of an item to be searched and/or added to the cart into a microphone 3913. In a further implementation, a user may also select other shopping options 3914 such as current items”, paragraph 361 and Fig. 39A);
b) determining, by the connection and communication platform, an interaction value of the search criteria for the consumer user device, the interaction value quantifying a first number of interactions across websites or advertisements by the consumer user device, […and the first number of interactions across the websites or advertisements being related to searches for the item type or the product…];
(“[0133] In the above example, the confidence inquiry message 324 provide merchant information associated with the request activity, consumer information, and an activity type as "transaction payment." The MCB-Platform scoring component 315 may determine how confident they are …. based on a variety of information, such as, but not limited to web claws 325 from Internet web 325 (e.g., news articles, merchant websites, etc.), consumer inputs 322 (e.g., consumer social media activities showing interactions of the merchant, purchasing history in the wallet, etc.), merchant updates, and/or the like. For example, one indicator for the confidence determination would be whether similar inconsistent information included in the payment request 312 (e.g., the address change as reflected in the above example) has been shown in additional information inputs such as 322-323”, paragraph 133 and Fig. 3B.
“[0134] Further implementations of the scoring component are discussed in FIGS. 6A-6E and 19A-19F. For example, the MCB-platform may provide inputs to the scoring component such as but not limited to account history, account purchasing, TCP/IP address, yak-tech paring, Internet claw, social media activities, accelerometer information (e.g., provided in the protocols in FIG. 3A in the stack). In one implementation, the scoring component may be used to assign the confidence value [Examiner interprets as an interaction value] in updating merchant information in MCB-Platform. For example, the scoring component (or the centralized personal information platform in FIGS. 18-37) may perform analytics of the obtained data, and generate and constantly update a confidence level of a piece of … based on the most updated data inputs…”, paragraph 134);
c) determining, by the connection and communication platform, a cost per views value of the search criteria, […the cost per views value quantifying a second number of interactions across websites or advertisements by other user devices, and the second number of interactions across the websites or advertisements being related based on the item type or the product;…]
(“0413] In response to obtaining the issuer server query, e.g., 4724, the pay network database may provide, e.g., 4725, the requested issuer server data to the pay network server. In some embodiments, the pay network server may utilize the issuer server data to generate funds authorization request(s), e.g., 4726, for each of the issuer server(s) selected based on the pre-defined payment settings associated with the user's virtual wallet, and/or the user's payment options input, and provide the funds authorization request(s) to the issuer server(s). In some embodiments, the funds authorization request(s) may include details such as, but not limited to: the costs to the user involved in the transaction….”, paragraph 413.
“…the funds authorization request(s) may include details such as, but not limited to: the costs to the user involved in the transaction…”, paragraph 426);
[d) when the interaction value plus the cost per views value exceeds a threshold value ], computing a dynamic cashback amount associated with the search criteria, the dynamic cashback amount being stored in an aggregation revenue pool of funds associated with an advertiser marketplace;
(“[0074] In one embodiment, a consumer may register his smartphone (e.g., an Apple iPhone) with an electronic wallet service on the MCB-Platform. The consumer may receive discount information, electronic coupons, offers, rewards, etc., from an enrolled merchant website via emails, text messages, and/or the like. For example, if McDonalds is an enrolled merchant at MCB-Platform, a registered consumer may receive a "$2.99 happy meal" SMS from the MCB-Platform [Examiner interprets as computing a dynamic cashback amount associated with the search criteria…], and may walk to a McDonalds store to purchase the "$2.99 happy meal" by providing his electronic wallet information, e.g., by swiping a MCB-Platform magstripe card, by engaging a NFC contactless handshake via his smartphone, and/or the like”, paragraph 74.
“0106] In one embodiment, upon receiving a list of matched offers, the consumer 102, and/or the merchant store 110 may determine whether there is any indication of redeeming the offer. If yes, the offer may be redeemed by the consumer 266 and/or the merchant store 267. For example, the consumer may receive an offer code for "10% OFF grocery delivery" via SMS, and he may redeem the offer by entering the offer code at the check-out page of ordering grocery delivery online. For another example, the merchant store may receive an indication of redeem the offer "10% OFF grocery delivery" when the consumer proceeds at check-out by providing his wallet information, and the merchant may redeem the offer by applying the discount for the consumer”[Examiner interprets as computing a dynamic cashback amount associated with the search criteria…], paragraph 106.
See also “0144] In one implementation, the MCB-Platform may verify merchant accepts payment type, apply merchant offers, discounts, loyalty calculations, confirm ability to pay (issuer approval) and initiate merchant payment to send an approval code (e.g., see in FIG. 3B) to wallet 350”[Examiner interprets as computing a dynamic cashback amount associated with the search criteria…], …”, paragraph 144)
e) transmitting, by the connection and communication platform to the consumer user device, an electronic communication that includes the dynamic cashback amount, a predetermined period of time to initiate a transaction for the product, and an identifier associated with the product;
(see at least “…The consumer may receive discount information, electronic coupons, offers, rewards, etc.[Examiner interprets as transmitting, by the connection and communication platform to the consumer user device, an electronic communication that includes the dynamic cashback amount], from an enrolled merchant website via emails, text messages, and/or the like. For example, if McDonalds is an enrolled merchant at MCB-Platform, a registered consumer may receive a "$2.99 happy meal" [dynamic cashback] SMS from the MCB-Platform …”, paragraph 74.
“[0088] In one embodiment, the merchant store 210 may obtain the "wallet" information 207 at its POS terminal, which may comprise the consumer's wallet account information (e.g., a wallet ID, the associated bank information, etc.), the product reservation information, and/or the like….”, paragraph 88.
“…For example, the consumer may receive an offer code for "10% OFF grocery delivery" via SMS, and he may redeem the offer by entering the offer code at the check-out page of ordering grocery delivery online. For another example, the merchant store may receive an indication of redeem the offer "10% OFF grocery delivery" when the consumer proceeds at check-out by providing his wallet information, and the merchant may redeem the offer by applying the discount for the consumer…”, paragraph 106.
“[0231] In some implementations, a user may desire to aggregate purchasing power from a variety of source, and apply the purchasing power towards executing a single transaction. For example, with reference to FIG. 10A, a user 1001a may desire to execute a transaction with a user 1001b. In some implementations, the user iota may communicate with user 1001b to execute the transaction via a universal value exchange controller 1003….”, paragraph 231.
“…In some implementations, such redemption may be for online purchases or brick and mortar purchases using an electronic or mobile wallet, a physical payment device or other methods. Further, redemption may occur … dynamically at the time of transaction”, paragraph 235. “[0236] From the point of view of a user 1018, the MCB-Platform provides a single place where points/currencies from various program providers 1010 can be managed, redeemed, exchanged 1012b, or linked to a wallet. Further, via the MCB-Platform, the user may have the flexibility to make a redemption dynamically at the time of purchase or prior to the purchase. The user may also have the option to combine points/currencies during the redemption….”, paragraph 236.
Next, Katzin’s system discloses a predetermined period of time, “[0239] Once the program has been configured, the partner or the partner's rewards program administrator 1030 may set exchange … conditions applicable to the exchange program 1042. … For example, it could be changed daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, etc. The exchange rate may be associated with a time period for which it is effective in some implementations”, paragraph 239. See also paragraph 238);
f) when the identifier associated with the product is received in association with the transaction of the product […within the predetermined period of time…], transferring, by the connection and communication platform, the dynamic cashback amount from the aggregation revenue pool of funds to a digital wallet of the consumer user.
("…MCB-Platform") provides a merchant-consumer bridging platform, whereby merchants and consumer electronic wallet accounts are registered with the MCB-Platform to facilitate consumer targeted offer distribution, redemption and payment during a purchasing transaction…”, paragraphs 73, 75 and 84.
“[0403] FIG. 46 shows a logic flow diagram illustrating example aspects of a user purchase checkout in some embodiments of the MCB-Platform, e.g., a User Purchase Checkout ("UPC") component 4600. In some embodiments, a user may desire to purchase a product, service, offering, and/or the like ("product"), from a merchant via a merchant online site or in the merchant's store. …. For example, the merchant server may utilize a parser such as the example parsers described below in the discussion with reference to FIG. 51. Based on parsing the checkout request, the merchant server may extract product data (e.g., product identifiers)…”, paragraph 403).
Katzin does not expressly disclose, but McGuire discloses
b) the first number of interactions across the websites or advertisements being related to searches for the item type or the product…];
(“[0011] The current generation of Internet search engines and comparison shopping engines generally improve the on-line shopping experience, provide a mechanism for merchants to improve their on-line presence, and create a marketplace of pay per click advertising rates that benefits the ISE's and CSE's…”, paragraph 11.
“[0012] A system and method of advertising products on an ISE are disclosed. A competitive environment is created in which merchants compete for prominent placement at or near the top of merchant search result listings identifying the merchants offering a particular good or service for sale [Examiner interprets as first number of interactions across websites or advertisements]…”, paragraphs 12 and 13),
c) […the cost per views value quantifying a second number of interactions across websites or advertisements by other user devices, and the second number of interactions across the websites or advertisements being related based on the item type or the product;…]
(“[0048] The price-per-sale advertising model employed by the ISE may be extended to a more general cost per action (CPA) model in which a merchant pays a fee to the ISE each time a customer performs a desired activity. T…”, paragraph 48 and “,,,campaigns that may be created using a cost-per-action payment model [Examiner interprets as a second number of interactions] for ensuring desired ad penetration. Another example may include paying an incentive to customers for contacting a merchant listed in a particular search results set, following a particular hypertext link, or some similar action. Sharing the cost per action fee with the customers who are being asked to perform the particular action…”, paragraph 51).
d) when the interaction value plus the cost per views
(“[0031] Among the features of the ISE are the manner in which search results are listed on the search results pages and the competitive manner in which merchants negotiate advertising fees in exchange for prominent placement on the search results pages. The key to both of these features is a price-per-sale (PPS) method of charging for advertising. According to an aspect of the invention, a merchant 18 may pay a fee to have its name, product, and pricing information prominently displayed at or near the top of product search results lists contained in the search results pages served to customers in response to customer search queries containing specific words, phrases, products, or the like. However, unlike the price-per-click model employed by other search engines and comparison shopping engines, merchants in the present model need only pay for completed sales [Examiner interprets as interaction value plus the cost per views]. The price-per-sale (PPS) model provides significant advantages for both merchants and customers alike”, paragraph 31),
value exceeds a threshold value,
(“…The method may further include establishing a customer discount account and crediting the account by an amount equal to the customer discount when the customer purchases a product from a merchant. Dispersements may be made to the customer when the account balance exceeds a predefined threshold, or at various incremental threshold amounts….”, paragraphs 17 and 43.
“[0064] The Event Management Service 218 provides generic capabilities for managing all system events driven by user interaction or data feeds. The EMS 218, includes an event validation and alerting capability for event state sequences. A pending cash back event is an example of a user triggered event. A pending cashback event is triggered whenever a user decides to make a purchase. All events will have a type, a duration and one or more resultant action sequences types depending on how the event or alert terminates. ..”, paragraph 64.
“…reimbursing a customer from the customer discount account when an account balance exceeds a pre-defined threshold…”, claims 16 and 26 of McGuire).
e) a predetermined period of time to initiate a transaction for the product, and an identifier associated with the product;
(“….The method may further include establishing a customer discount account and crediting the account by an amount equal to the customer discount when the customer purchases a product [the examiner interprets an identifier associated with the product ] from a merchant. Dispersements may be made to the customer when the account balance exceeds a predefined threshold, or at various incremental threshold amounts.”, paragraph 17.
“[0027] Merchant systems 18 provide product price and discount information to the ISE. Product information includes the identity (make and model) of products the merchant desires to sell. Price information include the base price the merchant is charging for the products, applicable sales tax, shipping costs, and the like.”, paragraph 27.
“…discounts may be provided to regular customers whose brand loyalty is not in doubt. Variable discounts may be created based on the time of day [Examiner interprets as predetermined period of time to initiate a transaction for the product]. A merchant may want to ensure prominent placement in product search results lists during times of the day known to be heavy on-line shopping periods, such as during the lunch time or late evening hours, and so forth…”, paragraph 46.
“[0064] The Event Management Service 218 provides generic capabilities for managing all system events driven by user interaction or data feeds. The EMS 218, includes an event validation and alerting capability for event state sequences. A pending cash back event is an example of a user triggered event. A pending cashback event is triggered whenever a user decides to make a purchase. All events will have a type, a duration [Examiner interprets as predetermined period of time to initiate a transaction for the product]…”, paragraph 64), and
f) […within the predetermined period of time…],
(“0043] Since the customer discount is to be paid out of the proceeds from the price-per-sale advertising fee, the ISE pays the discount to the customer. The ISE may create customer accounts which are credited with the appropriate customer discounts each time customers purchase products through the ISE. The ISE may determine when and how the discounts are reimbursed to customers….”, paragraph 43.
“[0064] The Event Management Service 218 provides generic capabilities for managing all system events driven by user interaction or data feeds. The EMS 218, includes an event validation and alerting capability for event state sequences. A pending cash back event is an example of a user triggered event. A pending cashback event is triggered whenever a user decides to make a purchase. All events will have a type, a duration and one or more resultant action sequences types depending on how the event or alert terminates…”, paragraph 64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate McGuire’s teaching with the teaching of Katzin. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to offer cash back or dispersement to a customer when customer’s account balance meets determined criteria or business rules such as, exceeding a predefined threshold, a predetermined period of time, etc. (paragraph 64), in order to increase traffic to merchant’s websites (see McGuire paragraph 7).
As to claim 8, it discloses the same limitation than claim 1 above , therefore is rejected in the same manner. Claim 8 further comprises
A connection and communication platform comprising (Fig. 1 and associated disclosure): a memory
(“the MCB-Platform may maintain a merchant database storing merchant information to provide matching offers to a consumer….”, paragraphs 17 and 73 and Fig. 6A) ; and
a processor that is configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in the memory that cause the processor to (abstract and element 220 Fig. 2A and associated disclosure).
As to claim 15, it discloses the same limitation than claim 1 above , therefore is rejected in the same manner.
As to claims 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17, Katzin discloses
Claim 2:
wherein the advertiser marketplace comprises a distributed computing environment (See Fig. 2A and associated disclosure), blockchain, mesh network, or other specialized, real-time communication system that communicatively connects a set of advertiser user devices.
(0160] In further implementations, interacting with the wallet in real time at the POS may provide real time rewards, redemptions and offers to the consumer 402. The offer matching to the consumer may be performed in a similar manner as discussed in FIGS. 2C-2E….”, paragraph 160).
Claim 3:
wherein the search criteria for the item type or the product is associated with a search initiated by a consumer user at the consumer user device (see Fig. 1A and associated disclosure).
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, Katzin discloses
wherein the search criteria for the item type or the product is associated with a recommendation initiated by the connection and communication platform based on usage history by the consumer user.
(“…The consumer opt-in activities 105 may comprise a variety of other activities, such as, but not limited to consumer browsing history, in-store transaction history, shopping cart history, wish list, various social media activities (e.g., "like" or comment on a merchant link or product on Facebook, etc,), blog experiences, and/or the like”, paragraph 77 and Figs. 1A-1C).
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, Katzin discloses further comprising:
prior to transferring the dynamic cashback amount to the digital wallet of the consumer user, reducing the dynamic cashback amount in association with a risk value of the transaction of the product.
(“…At 1122, the MCB-Platform server may determine equivalent value that the user may obtain after the exchange. Determination of the equivalent value may be based on risk exposure, the details of which are discussed with respect to FIGS. 12A-B”, paragraph 248 and Figs. 12A-B).
As to claims 6, 13 and 20, Katzin discloses further comprising:
determining a risk value of the consumer user associated with the transaction of the product (see “risk exposure weight” column in table 1, paragraph 253); and
when the risk value exceeds a second threshold value, turning off the digital wallet of the consumer user (“…predefined risk thresholds…”, paragraph 253. See also “…increasing the risk exposure and therefore may require adjustment of the exchange rate…”, paragraph 288).
The Examiner notes that although Katzin does not expressly disclose “turning off the digital wallet of the consumer user”. But, from the teaching of Katzin in paragraphs 253 and 288, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate any kind of business rules such as “turning off the digital wallet of the consumer user” in order to make profitable the merchant advertising model integrated into a market place (see Katzin “revenue sharing”, paragraph 243 or “to collect revenue” paragraph 252).
As to claims 7 and 14, Katzin discloses further comprising: determining a maximum amount of the dynamic cashback amount based on cost per thousand/mil le (CPM) views or cost per click (CPC) rates as incoming funds and the dynamic cashback amount as outgoing funds.
(“…The intermediary may be, for example, a MCB-Platform currency (e.g., MCB-Platform point) or a non-denominational currency (e.g., a unit). In such a case, the program provider may need to negotiate with the MCB-Platform to set the exchange rate between the provider currency and the MCB-Platform currency. These bilateral agreements may be carried out electronically. ..”, paragraphs 234 and 239.
“…At 1122, the MCB-Platform server may determine equivalent value that the user may obtain after the exchange. Determination of the equivalent value may be based on risk exposure, the details of which are discussed with respect to FIGS. 12A-B”, paragraphs 248 and 254.
“…0255] Upon determining the exchange rate, the MCB-Platform may determine the equivalent value that client would receive in the form of a target gift card [cash back]at 1232…”, paragraph 255).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“An overview of computational challenges in online advertising”. IEEE. 2013. This article discloses “Online advertising is a large and rapidly growing business. The major players in the space, namely advertisers, publishers, and ad exchanges, are developing increasingly sophisticated systems, methods and tools to facilitate, manage, optimize and report on the performance of online advertising marketplaces and campaigns. Developing solutions that are both mathematically sound and practical draws on techniques from a variety of disciplines including machine learning, stochastic optimal control, information retrieval, data mining, natural language processing, and econometrics. In this paper, we provide an overview of the online advertising space, and identify, frame, and describe solution approaches to some of the major computational challenges in the space. We describe specific examples from industry applications, including ad inventory auctions, bidding and allocation strategies for ad inventory, inventory targeting, banner and landing page optimization, and performance estimation.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VICTORIA VANDERHORST whose telephone number is (571)270-3604. The examiner can normally be reached on business hours from Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashraf Waseem 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 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.
/MARIA V VANDERHORST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
10/15/2025