DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This is a Final office action in response to communication received on December 01, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein.
Priority
2. Figures (Figs.) in instant application, namely 8D, 9B, 10A-H, are not in provisional application 63/603703 filed 11/29/2023. Thus claims as supported by at least Figs. 8D and 9B, and their associated disclosure are not entitled to priority benefit of 11/29/2023. Furthermore, in instant application, namely Figs. 10A-10H, are in provisional application 63/618515 filed 01/08/2024, as such, the claimed subject matter supported by Figs. 10A-10H and their associated disclosure will get priority benefit of 01/08/2024
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.
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. Next using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidances (hereinafter 2019 PEG) the rejection as follows has been applied.
Under step 1, analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, claims 1-14 and 18-20 are a method; and claims 15-17 are a system. Thus, each claim 1-20, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Under Step 2A Prong One, per MPEP 2106.04, prong one asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
Next, per 2019 PEG, to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (I) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (II) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
(I) An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 1-20 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements, which are first considered under step 2A prong two when claim(s) is/are reconsidered as a whole and exclusively under step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of associating a first product purchase with a first consumer in order to credit or attribute sale of subsequent purchases of the first product by a second, a third, etc. consumer(s) to the first consumer and provide a benefit or reward or referral award to the first consumer for assisting in selling the first products which is certain methods of organizing human activity (but for its implementation in network based environment - which is considered further under prong two and step 2B analysis as set forth below).
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, per MPEP 2106.04, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’).
Next, per 2019 PEG, Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (I) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (II) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Accordingly, the examiner will evaluate whether the claims recite one or more additional element(s) that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception by considering them both individually and as a whole.
The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1-20 at least are a physical object, storing in a database, a second buyer device interacting with physical object, automatically (per claims 1 and claims 10) graphical object capable of being transmitted and scanned (per claim 3), blockchain (per claim 4), printing at a point of sale (per claim 5), second buyer device scanning a graphical object on the first product by a camera on the second buyer device (per claim 6) scanning the graphical object onto the second buyer device, wherein a purchasing service retrieves the association of the first product, the first buyer and the graphical object in the database (per claim 7), receiving a scan of the graphical object physically from the first product, receiving a scan of the graphical object from a display of a first buyer device, receiving a communication at the second buyer device from the first buyer device, or receiving a scan of the graphical object from a social media posting of the first buyer (per claim 8), the communication comprises a message, a voicemail or email (per claim 9), radio frequency computer chip or graphical code (per claim 11), system comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to be configured to (additionally per claim 15, remaining additional elements are substantially similar to claims 1 and 10 noted above), object comprises one of a near field communication tag and a graphical object (per claim 16), second buyer device by optically scanning the object, receives a communication having the object, or receives stored data from the object when the object comprises a near field communication tag (per claim 17), and receiving, from a mobile device and over a wireless link with a point-of-sale device, payment data (per claim 18). Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figs. 1, 11, and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device(s) merely sending/receiving data over a network, note receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Gathered/received/captured/scanned data is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the processor analyzes scanned/captured/received/transmitted data by a second user from a code on physical object to ascertain whether a benefit to the first user is applicable by looking up the scanned data in a database to check whether the scanned product is associated with the first user or not. Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) - certain result here is a referral or marketing benefit based on information about the first user linked with scanned product (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 patent). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to provide personalized marketing content such as ads, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of associating a first product purchase with a first consumer in order to credit or attribute sale of subsequent purchases of the first product by a second, a third, etc. consumer(s) to the first consumer and provide a benefit or reward or referral award to the first consumer for assisting in selling the first products which is certain methods of organizing human activity (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 1-20, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of associating a first product purchase with a first consumer in order to credit or attribute sale of subsequent purchases of the first product by a second, a third, etc. consumer(s) to the first consumer and provide a benefit or reward or referral award to the first consumer for assisting in selling the first products which is certain methods of organizing human activity - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) [similarly here user's data associated with a product for sale is received and based on analysis benefit is provided];
(ii) (a) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014), (b) Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53, (b) Pub. No.: US 20140351030 see [0014] note "an exemplary promotional-campaign network 100 including a consumer device (e.g., a mobile device) 102 linked to other systems via a network 104 that supports wired, wireless, or any two-way communication (e.g., a cellular telephone network, the Internet, or any wide-area network or combination of networks capable of supporting point-to-point data transfer and communication). The network 104 connects various devices, including a campaign processor 106, one or more merchant systems 108, and one or more servers hosting social media applications 110 utilizing, again, wired, wireless, or any suitable form of two-way communication [...] In one embodiment, the merchant system 108 is a point-of-sale (POS) system that connects to a code reader or scanner (hereafter reader ) 112. The reader 112 may be mobile or physically associated with the merchant system 108 and may be capable of reading and/or decoding a promotional offer presented by a consumer on her mobile device 102, in the form of, for example, a barcode, a radio frequency identification (RFID) code, or a QR code, and/or receiving signals, such as NFC signals, acoustic signals, or infrared signals. The merchant system 108 is responsible for applying a discount to goods or services purchased by the consumer based on information provided therein"; (c) Patent No.: US 9792597 "For example, the computers may include magnetic card readers, RFID readers, near-field communication (NFC) readers/writers, etc. In some cases, computer terminals used by business entities and supported by the support services 102 may enable mobile payments, such by allowing a retail customer to use a smartphone or other mobile device to pay for a purchase"; (d) Hewett (Pub. No. 2013/0103537) notes in para. [0009] and [0020] "The item is then scanned with the mobile computing platform. The scan may be performed, for example, using a bar code or a QR code associated with the item or by scanning an active or passive RFID tag physically placed on the item, by utilizing some form of NFC communication, or any other means well known in the art." that wireless communication between two device via NFC and similar technology is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry; and (e) Ortiz et al. (Pub. No.: US 2002/0042743) hereinafter Ortiz, notes in para. [0085] "An example of one type of PAN that may be utilized in accordance with preferred embodiments of the present invention is "Bluetooth," a telecommunications standard well-known in the wireless networking arts. "Bluetooth" is a telecommunications standard adopted by a consortium of wireless equipment manufacturers referred to as the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (BSIG). Bluetooth is generally a global standard for low cost wireless data and voice communications." that wireless communication using NFC such as Bluetooth and similar technology is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional industry established standard." [similarly here user's data associated with a product for sale is printed as graphical object which when scanned by a second user purchasing said product and based on analysis of whether first user is linked with the first product, benefit is provided to the first and/o second users]; and
(iii) (a)Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)."; and (b) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 [similarly here first user associated with a product is stored and retrieved from database].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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 1-3 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Torabi (Pub. No.: US 2015/0154624), in view of Vorotyntsev et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0195316) referred to hereinafter as Vorotyntsev.
As per claims 1, 10, and 15, Torabi discloses
per claim 1, a method comprising:
per claim 10, a method comprising:
per claim 15, a system comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to be configured to (see [0082]-[0083]; [0102]; [0108]-[0115]):
per claim limitations of claims 1, 10, and 15 (taking claim recitation of claim 1 as representative):
(a) storing an association of a first product purchased by a and first buyer and a physical object configured with or on the first product in a database (see Figs. 1, 3, and their associated disclosure which has database “171” and “172”; [0020] "tangible"; [0028] note “Database 171 stores product identifiers, such as Product Identifier 140, as they are captured by various data collectors using devices such as Device 120. In some embodiments, Database 171 further stores additional information associated with each captured product identifier, including information pertinent to each of the data collectors who captured the product identifier (e.g., descriptive details) and environment information (e.g., time, location).”; [0038]; [0049]-[0050]; [0053]; [0060] "hard copies"; [0066]-[0067]);
(b) receiving an identification of the first product from a second buyer device of a second buyer, the second buyer device interacting with the physical object (see [0038]; [0058]-[0059]; [0060] note “Bob can gain access to Alice's contact information by capturing Alice's bespoke QR code using Application 130 in a similar fashion to capturing ( e.g., photographing, scanning) a product identifier (e.g., Product Identifier 140). In some embodiments, Application 130 can decode Alice's bespoke QR code to extract, retrieve, and otherwise obtain the personalized or custom content associated with the bespoke QR code.”; [0066]-[0067]);
(c) processing a purchase of a second product by the second buyer based on the identification (see [0038]; [0060]; [0066]-[0067]); and
(d) providing a benefit to the first buyer […] (see [0038]).
Additionally, per claim 10, it recites generating a group of products wherein a respective product in the group of products is made with a respective graphical object unique to the respective product (see [0053]; [0058]-[0060]; [0066]-[0067])
(e*) Torabi suggests purchase, see [0038], however Torabi expressly does not teach […] based on the purchase of the second product. Vorotyntsey teaches […] based on the purchase of the second product by the second buyer (see [0022]; [0033]-[0034]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHSOITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey’s teachings with motivation to facilitate a purchase via Elink which could manifest as different types of codes such that the first referring entity can be credited and provided a benefit for second or subsequent user(s) making a purchase via the referral code, see at least Vorotyntsey [0022] and [0034].
2. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Torabi teaches wherein the association of the first product and the first buyer is performed via use of a graphical object associated with the first product (see [0038]; [0050]; [0053]; [0057]-[0060]; [0066]-[0067]).
3. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey teaches the claim limitations of claim 2. Torabi teaches wherein the graphical object is transmitted to a first buyer device for storage and later scanning (see [0050]; [0053]; [0057]-[0060]; [0066]-[0067]).
6. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Torabi teaches wherein the identification of the first product from the second buyer device occurs via the second buyer device scanning a graphical object on the first product by a camera on the second buyer device (see [0059]; [0060]).
7. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey teaches the claim limitations of claim 6. Torabi teaches accessing a purchasing service based on the second buyer has scanning the graphical object onto the second buyer device, wherein a purchasing service retrieves the association of the first product, the first buyer and the graphical object in the database to identify the second product and to identify the first buyer to provide the benefit to the first buyer (see [0038]; [0060]; [0066]-[0067]).
8. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey teaches the claim limitations of claim 6. Torabi teaches wherein the identification of the first product from the second buyer device occurs via one or more of receiving a scan of the graphical object physically from the first product, receiving a scan of the graphical object from a display of a first buyer device, receiving a communication at the second buyer device from the first buyer device, or receiving a scan of the graphical object from a social media posting of the first buyer (see [0038]; [0060]; [0066]-[0067]).
9. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey teaches the claim limitations of claim 8. Torabi teaches wherein the communication comprises a message, a voicemail or email (see [0038]; [0060]; [0066]-[0067]).
11. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey teaches the claim limitations of claim 10. Torabi teaches wherein the respective product is a respective physical product and wherein the respective physical object is one of a radio frequency computer chip or a graphical code (see [0045]; [0057]-[0067]).
12. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey teaches the claim limitations of claim 10. Torabi teaches wherein the benefit comprises one or more of money, a discount, a coupon, a gift, a registration, access to a venue (see [0034]; [0057]-[0067]).
13. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey teaches the claim limitations of claim 10. Torabi teaches wherein receiving the data from the respective physical object comprises receiving a scan of the respective physical object from the second buyer device (see [0038]; [0058]-[0060]).
14. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey teaches the claim limitations of claim 10. Torabi suggests see [0038], however Torabi expressly does not teach, but Vorotyntsey teaches wherein the respective physical object includes information enabling the second buyer device to access a network-based purchasing service to enable the sale of the second product (see [0069]; [0076]-[0078]; [0105]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHSOITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey’s teachings with motivation to facilitate a purchase via Elink which could manifest as different types of codes such that the first referring entity can be credited and provided a benefit for second or subsequent user(s) making a purchase via the referral code, see at least Vorotyntsey [0022] and [0034].
5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Torabi in view of Vorotyntsev, and Kang et al. (Pub. No.: US2023/0401595) referred to hereinafter as Kang.
4. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Torabi teaches further comprising: recording […] data confirming the association of the first product and the first buyer (see [0050]; [0053]; [0057]-[0060]; [0066]-[0067]).
Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey expressly does not teach […] on a blockchain network […]. Kang teaches […] on a blockchain network […] (see [0002]; [0012]-[0014]; [0017]; [0019]-[0025]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHSOITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey in view of Kang’s teachings with motivation to implement referral tracking on blockchain such that the user(s) that promotes certain product(s) can be credited with driving the sale of one or more product(s), see at least Kang [0002] and [0012].
6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Torabi in view of Vorotyntsev, and Mimassi (Pub. No.: US2021/0158384).
5. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Torabi teaches further comprising: […] a graphical object that associates the first buyer and the first product (see [0058]-[0060]).
Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey expressly does not teach […] printing, at a point-of-sale, a physical object showing […]. Mimassi teaches […] printing, at a point-of-sale, a physical object showing […] (see [0105]-[0109]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHSOITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey in view of Mimassi’s teachings with motivation to implement referral marketing by promoting a user’s product(s) at a POS by via a printed unique scannable code, see at least Mimassi [0094]-[0095].
7. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey, and Cohn (Pub. No.: US2016/0328639).
16. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey teaches the claim limitations of claim 15. Torabi teaches wherein an object associated with the first product is used to associate the first product with the first buyer […] (see [0038]; [0057]-[0067]).
Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey expressly does not teach […] and the object comprises one of a near field communication tag and a graphical object. Cohn teaches […] and the object comprises one of a near field communication tag and a graphical object (see [0150]-[0152]; [0153] note “FIG. 20 and FIG. 21 illustrate an exemplary method for tapping a tag for a product, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. In a step 2000 a user taps a private tag a NFC enabled device such as, without limitation, a smartphone, tablet, etc. Tags may be programmed with industry standard NFC Data Exchange Format (NDEF) record(s) that may tell the smartphone operating system (OS) which application may be installed or launched when tapped in a step 2001. If the desired app to handle the tag is not installed in a step 2002, the smartphone OS will attempt to install it automatically with user permission and then launch the app. If the app is already installed in a step 2003, it will be launched to handle this tag type. A native app need not be installed and steps 2001 to 2003 may alternately launch a web app in the browser of user's device. The type of tag may be private to the manufacturer because of its unique package identifier within the NDEF record. The smartphone app may establish a connection and log the user in a step 2004 with a server. The user logs in and the app sends the server the tag ID and the user's ID such as, but not limited to, an email address, phone number, unique device ID or combination, etc. in a step 2005. The server may log the tap event in its database with the tap's timestamp, tag ID and other information. The server may check if this specific tag already has an assigned owner in a step 2006. In a step 2007, if owner(s) already exist for the private tag, the system still may accept additional owners and proceeds to a step 2010. If the product configuration no longer permits assigning this user as an owner, it may treat the tag as if it were a public tag in a step 2008 and offer the user benefits of such in a step 2009. In a step 2013 the server may send appropriate directives to the user's smartphone for a prospective product owner, perhaps in the form of content sections for display, including but not limited to product information, videos, recipe ideas, user manual, cross promotional and upsell products, solicitation for reorder subscription, quick poll, referral links, coupon and rebate offers, reviews, wish list, rewards and prizes. Otherwise, the system may assign the user as being the first or follow-on owners of the tag in a step 2010. In a step 2011 the user may be treated as an owner who tapped a private tag, and number of events may be triggered in a step 2012. The server may log the ownership detection with additional useful information such as, but not limited to, user id, tag id, timestamp, various sensor data, and GPS location if available. The server may check if someone referred this product to this customer in a step 2015 and close conversion loops in a step 2016 if that is the case. Closing a referral loop generally means that a referrer was successful at converting a referral into a buyer or newly acquired customer.”; [0154]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHSOITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey in view of Cohn’s teachings with motivation to implement referral marketing and tracking by promoting a user’s product(s) via easily transmittable NFC tag encoded with referral tracking data, see at least Cohn [0149]-[0153].
17. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey and Cohn teaches the claim limitations of claim 15. Torabi teaches wherein the second buyer receives the object onto the second buyer device by optically scanning the object, receiving a communication having the object, or receiving stored data from the object when the object comprises a near field communication tag (see [0060]).
18. A method comprising: receiving, from a mobile device […], payment data associated with a transaction for a first buyer to pay for a new product from a merchant (see [0034]; [0057]-[0067]); identifying discount data for the transaction, the discount data existing based on the first buyer (1) previously purchasing a first product from the merchant […] based on an association between the first product and the first buyer in connection with a physical object configured on the first product being stored in a database the association being identified by the second buyer using a second buyer device to interact with the physical object (see Figs. 1, 3, and their associated disclosure which has database “171” and “172”; [0020] "tangible"; [0028] note “Database 171 stores product identifiers, such as Product Identifier 140, as they are captured by various data collectors using devices such as Device 120. In some embodiments, Database 171 further stores additional information associated with each captured product identifier, including information pertinent to each of the data collectors who captured the product identifier (e.g., descriptive details) and environment information (e.g., time, location).”; [0038]; [0049]-0050]; [0053]; [0060] "hard copies"; [0066]-[0067]); applying the discount data to the transaction to generate a remainder amount for the transaction to purchase the new product; and processing a payment of the remainder amount, if any, using the payment data (see [0034]; [0063]).
Torabi in view of Carlson expressly does not teach […] and over a wireless link with a point-of-sale device […]. Cohn teaches […] and over a wireless link with a point-of-sale device […] (see [0134]; [0149]-[0153]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHSOITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey in view of Cohn’s teachings with motivation to implement referral marketing and tracking by promoting a user’s product(s) via easily transmittable NFC tag encoded with referral tracking data, see at least Cohn [0149]-[0153].
Torabi in view of Carlson expressly does not teach […] and (2) a second buyer buying a second product […]. Vorotyntsey teaches […] and (2) a second buyer buying a second product […] (see [0022]; [0033]-[0034]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHSOITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey’s teachings with motivation to facilitate a purchase via Elink which could manifest as different types of codes such that the first referring entity can be credited and provided a benefit for second or subsequent user(s) making a purchase via the referral code, see at least Vorotyntsey [0022] and [0034].
19. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey and Cohn teaches the claim limitations of claim 18. Torabi teaches wherein a graphical object is configured on the first product to establish the connection between the first product and the first buyer (see [0060]).
20. Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey and Cohn teaches the claim limitations of claim 18. Torabi suggests, see [0057]-[0060] and [0066]-[0067], however Torabi expressly does not teach wherein the second buyer buys the second product based on the second buyer device scanning the graphical object to purchase the second product and to generate the discount data for the transaction. Vorotyntsey teaches wherein the second buyer buys the second product based on the second buyer device scanning the graphical object to purchase the second product and to generate the discount data for the transaction (see [0022]; [0033]-[0034]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHSOITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Torabi in view of Vorotyntsey’s teachings with motivation to facilitate a purchase via Elink which could manifest as different types of codes such that the first referring entity can be credited and provided a benefit for second or subsequent user(s) making a purchase via the referral code, see at least Vorotyntsey [0022] and [0034].
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
8. As per 101 arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that “on-product object as the control point for device behavior and data access” is somehow sufficient to supply integration of the abstract idea into practical application, however as explained the inventive concept when considered as a whole still remains abstract one because the function still remains that of capturing data which is insignificant extra solution activity such as pre-solution activity e.g. data gathering. Based on this gathered and stored data, still the idea is to facilitate a purchase and providing referral/attribution to the first consumer via scanning of their personalized code that led to the purchase, i.e. “viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of associating a first product purchase with a first consumer in order to credit or attribute sale of subsequent purchases of the first product by a second, a third, etc. consumer(s) to the first consumer and provide a benefit or reward or referral award to the first consumer for assisting in selling the first products which is certain methods of organizing human activity (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.”
Further, the Applicant argues step 2B, however the Applicant is reminded that the evaluation is limited to one or more additional elements both singularly and in-combination, and not a re-evaluation of prong one abstract recitation based analysis. This is apparent from the Applicant’s remarks that not that some of the additional elements are not mental processes and provides benefit to the first consumer by executing abstract concept of referral accounting. Accordingly, in addition to the claims failing integration into practical application, the claims also fail to provide any additional element(s) that can be considered significantly more, note “the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of associating a first product purchase with a first consumer in order to credit or attribute sale of subsequent purchases of the first product by a second, a third, etc. consumer(s) to the first consumer and provide a benefit or reward or referral award to the first consumer for assisting in selling the first products which is certain methods of organizing human activity - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) [similarly here user's data associated with a product for sale is received and based on analysis benefit is provided];
(ii) (a) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014), (b) Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53, (b) Pub. No.: US 20140351030 see [0014] note "an exemplary promotional-campaign network 100 including a consumer device (e.g., a mobile device) 102 linked to other systems via a network 104 that supports wired, wireless, or any two-way communication (e.g., a cellular telephone network, the Internet, or any wide-area network or combination of networks capable of supporting point-to-point data transfer and communication). The network 104 connects various devices, including a campaign processor 106, one or more merchant systems 108, and one or more servers hosting social media applications 110 utilizing, again, wired, wireless, or any suitable form of two-way communication [...] In one embodiment, the merchant system 108 is a point-of-sale (POS) system that connects to a code reader or scanner (hereafter reader ) 112. The reader 112 may be mobile or physically associated with the merchant system 108 and may be capable of reading and/or decoding a promotional offer presented by a consumer on her mobile device 102, in the form of, for example, a barcode, a radio frequency identification (RFID) code, or a QR code, and/or receiving signals, such as NFC signals, acoustic signals, or infrared signals. The merchant system 108 is responsible for applying a discount to goods or services purchased by the consumer based on information provided therein"; (c) Patent No.: US 9792597 "For example, the computers may include magnetic card readers, RFID readers, near-field communication (NFC) readers/writers, etc. In some cases, computer terminals used by business entities and supported by the support services 102 may enable mobile payments, such by allowing a retail customer to use a smartphone or other mobile device to pay for a purchase"; (d) Hewett (Pub. No. 2013/0103537) notes in para. [0009] and [0020] "The item is then scanned with the mobile computing platform. The scan may be performed, for example, using a bar code or a QR code associated with the item or by scanning an active or passive RFID tag physically placed on the item, by utilizing some form of NFC communication, or any other means well known in the art." that wireless communication between two device via NFC and similar technology is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry; and (e) Ortiz et al. (Pub. No.: US 2002/0042743) hereinafter Ortiz, notes in para. [0085] "An example of one type of PAN that may be utilized in accordance with preferred embodiments of the present invention is "Bluetooth," a telecommunications standard well-known in the wireless networking arts. "Bluetooth" is a telecommunications standard adopted by a consortium of wireless equipment manufacturers referred to as the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (BSIG). Bluetooth is generally a global standard for low cost wireless data and voice communications." that wireless communication using NFC such as Bluetooth and similar technology is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional industry established standard." [similarly here user's data associated with a product for sale is printed as graphical object which when scanned by a second user purchasing said product and based on analysis of whether first user is linked with the first product, benefit is provided to the first and/o second users]; and
(iii) (a)Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)."; and (b) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 [similarly here first user associated with a product is stored and retrieved from database].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.”
As per 103 arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s very limited characterization of relied upon prior art, especially Torabi. The rejection has been updated in view of filed claim amendments. Indeed upon fully considering Torabi a PHOSITA would appreciate teachings of unique bespoke codes for which the first consumer gets credit when a second user makes a purchase via the unique bespoke of the first consumer, for instance note the updated rejection, at least see Figs. 1, 3, and their associated disclosure which has database “171” and “172”; [0020] "tangible"; [0028] note “Database 171 stores product identifiers, such as Product Identifier 140, as they are captured by various data collectors using devices such as Device 120. In some embodiments, Database 171 further stores additional information associated with each captured product identifier, including information pertinent to each of the data collectors who captured the product identifier (e.g., descriptive details) and environment information (e.g., time, location).”; [0038]; [0049]-[0050]; [0053]; [0060] “unique content identifier that incorporates and/or links to personalized or custom content (e.g., a bespoke QR code) lends portability and accessibility to diverse and voluminous amounts of personalized or custom content. For example, in various embodiments, a registered data collector like Alice can share and otherwise disseminate personalized or custom content by simply distributing a bespoke QR code. In this manner, Alice is able to share her personalized and custom content with virtually anyone ( e.g., friends, colleagues, potential employer, etc.) and via any appropriate channel or means (e.g., email, SMS, social network, hard copies, etc.).”; [0066]-[0067]. Therefore the Examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive and respectfully maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and all the references on PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited should be duly noted by the Applicant as they can be subsequently used during prosecution, at least note the following:
*Being noted initially
- Patent No.: US12229622 see "The XR tags 108 can have contextual relevance or awareness in relation to the user, characteristics or events of the physical world and/or a certain time/time period. XR tags 108 can also have social relevance to the physical world and/or to the user accessing the XR platform. The XR platform may be configured to generate a representation of the physical environment associated with the physical world (e.g., a physical location, reality, real-world environment, etc.). The representation of the physical environment can include an image, a video, a live video, a recorded video, a video stream of the physical environment. In general, the representation of the physical environment can include any photorealistic production or reproduction of the physical environment. For example, the representation of the physical environment can be digitally rendered or in part or in whole digitally created, synthesized or illustrated. As disclosed herein, the XR tags 108 are interactable, which means they are depicted or rendered in the XR environment 100 to serve a function or purpose in the real-world. In some examples, such functions or purposes can be referred to as “claim actions” which can include, but are not limited to, coupons, rewards, tickets, avatars, information about a merchant, things, feedback to a service, etc. "
"In particular embodiments, one or more of the data stores 126 may store information (e.g., in the XR data 132) associated with one or more connections between one or more reward offers with one or more payment accounts. Each connection may indicate an association or assignment by the user 102(1) of a reward offer to the user's payment account. As described herein, XR tags can be associated with a variety of claim actions."
"PLACEMENT OF XR TAGS: In some embodiments, the placement component 142 can enable placement of the XR tags 108 at merchant locations and/or for customers in its ecosystem. In some embodiments, the placement may be specific to users, locations or even for specific use cases. To this end, the placement component 142 can access an internal knowledge and rule base 124, to determine whether a specific condition is met, satisfied, or the like to trigger the generation and/or placement of XR tags 108, as defined in the rule base 124 (e.g., in placement rules). For example, the XR platform can determine whether a user (e.g., a merchant, customer, etc.) has arrived at a certain location, e.g., where a customer is present, or even within a geofence of a location, when the XR platform places the XR tag 108. The XR tag 108 can also be placed at a specific time. More generally, the placement component 142 can place the XR tag 108 when a specific event happens. The placement component 142 can track the customer location vis-à-vis a merchant location, and dynamically offer XR tags 108 relevant to the customer, merchant, time of the day, occasion, and so on. In some implementations, techniques, such as geofencing, can be used to determine whether a certain condition is met. For example, if the user has crossed a boundary to enter another boundary. Accordingly, the placement component 142 can generate the XR tags 108 when that condition(s) is/are satisfied or otherwise met. In some example scenarios, the placement component 142 can automatically place and distribute the XR tags 108 to a select number of merchants or merchant locations. In some examples, XR tags 108 can be positioned in real environments, which can be associated with merchant brick-and-mortar stores or not. In some examples, XR tags 108 can be positioned in virtual environments, such as in association with merchant websites, virtual storefronts, or the like. In some implementations, the XR tag generation and/or placement rules can be manually applied to all merchants in the ecosystem of the XR platform. Alternatively, the XR tags 108 can be generated and/or placed for a specific set of merchants or customers, identified, e.g., based on commonalities and segmentations, such as item classification, customer classification, merchant classification described by, e.g., merchant category code (MCC), location, area of business, merchant preferences, and so on. In some examples, an XR tag 108 can be particular to a merchant, a group of merchants (e.g., offering the same products or services, having a similar geolocation, in the same MCC, etc.), a service provider, or the like. The automation as described herein can be implemented using machine learning, such as deep learning algorithms."
- Pub. No.: US2014/0195316 see [0153] "A profile may advantageously include a listing of all of the goods that user 10 has purchased, what products they have reviewed, whose purchases they influenced (as a primary, secondary and/or tertiary reference and so on), and who influenced their purchases. Users 10 with the highest rating can be designated with a title, e.g., an “Influencer” or a “Sponsor.” Influencers are users 10 with the highest rating compiled as a result of proprietary matrix, which takes into account various parameters, such as how many other users 10 were influenced to purchase through an ELink, how many ELinks spread in social feed, how often the reviews are written, how many users 10 read those reviews, and so on. Once an Influencer has reached a certain status, they can become Sponsors. A Sponsor is an Influencer on system 20 that has been approached by a Vendor/user 10 and offered to sponsor a product or an offer based on their social clout (purchases by others) within the electronic universe. Sponsored ELinks can be clearly marked as such and the Influencer who decides to Sponsor an ELink product or manufacturer need not purchase the product to create a root Elink 100. As noted above in the examples, in one preferred embodiment, celebrities can be ELink Sponsors, which is similar to endorsing a company or a line of products. Any such Celebrity Sponsor ELinks may be clearly visible on the profile."
- Pub. No.: US2015/0120462 see [0161] In some embodiments, the server receives (S434) a user instruction from the first client device to purchase the first merchandise item. In response to receiving the user instruction, the server coordinates (S436) a payment transaction for the purchase of the first merchandise item using a payment account associated with the first user account. In some embodiments, in response to receiving the user instruction, the server determines (S438) that the first merchandise item and the first user account is associated with the second user account based on the second association. In response to the determining, the server registers a credit for a second user of the second user account for the sale of the first merchandise item to the first user.
*Previously presented
- Pub. No.: US2015/0154624 Abstract "a system which uses a unique code, for example a QR code, on a physical product. The code is conveniently readable, for example by a smartphone or tablet, and connects the reader to a specific network address. Dynamically variable content is provided at the network address, which may be provided by the product vendor or manufacturer, by the purchaser, or by other parties. The content may vary depending upon which party is accessing the code"
- Pub. No.: US2014/0195316 see Abstract note "A method for managing the sale of goods and services includes coupling at least one good or service to a first hyperlink associated with the first vendor and the at least one good or service. A database tracks and stores the purchase of the at least one good or service coupled to the first hyperlink and generating a second hyperlink corresponding to the good or service as well as to both the first vendor and the first buyer, and supplying the second hyperlink to the first buyer. The first buyer may display the second hyperlink to a plurality of additional buyers, and, when each of the plurality of additional buyers conducts a transaction using the second hyperlink to purchase the at least one good or service from the first vendor, the purchase is recorded in connection with the additional buyers, the first vendor and the first buyer."
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIPEN M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 08:30-17:00 EST.
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 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.
/DIPEN M PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621