DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
0. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, Applicant's filed response has been entered.
This is a Non-Final office action in response to communication received on May 11, 2026. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending and examined herein.
Claim Interpretation
1. The Examiner notes that claims 1 and 18 are a method claim. Claim 1 recites “after” and claim 8 recites “if any” which are being interpreted as contingent limitation in a method claim. However, note per MPEP 2111.04 See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of method claims, particularly note "When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10."
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 1-5 and 7-20 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 1-5 and 7-14 and 18-20 are a method; and claims 15-17 are a system. Thus, each claim 1-5 and 7-20, 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 1-5 and 7-20 [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 buyer 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 buyer and provide a benefit or reward or referral award to the first buyer for assisting in propagating subsequent sales of 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 1-5 and 7-20 at least are a visual code capable of being optical scanning, storing by a server in a database, a second buyer device scanning the visual code, server receiving notification, retrieving data from database, automatically (per claims 1, 10, and claims 15) 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 buyer 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 buyer and provide a benefit or reward or referral award to the first buyer for assisting in propagating subsequent sales of 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 1-5 and 7-20, 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 buyer 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 buyer and provide a benefit or reward or referral award to the first buyer for assisting in propagating subsequent sales of 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)."; (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; and (c) collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected (FairWarning) [similarly here purchase notification when a second buyer referred by the first buyer completes a purchase is generated to retrieve from database data of the first buyer to log a credit on behalf of the first user].
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 § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Vorotyntsev et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0195316) referred to hereinafter as Vorotyntsev.
10. Vorotyntsev discloses a method comprising: (a) generating a group of products wherein a respective product in the group of products is made with a respective physical object unique to the respective product and configured with or on the respective product (see [0103]; [0139]);
(b) identifying a first buyer and the respective physical object and storing data in a database associating the first buyer and the respective physical object (see [0034] note " “ELink’ acronym that stands for “electronic link', which may manifest as […], printed code (bar code, QR code, or any other code). ELinks look like a short obfuscated code (e.g. “x6Z23a). ELinks are defined in more detail below"; [0044] note "Coupled to processing servers 24 are at least Some user databases 26 for containing various stored user data including login data, account data, transaction records etc. . . . for each of users 10 of system 20. Additionally, system 20 maintains elink databases 28 for Supporting processing servers 24 in the management and storage of the various elinks and the relationships and related stored incentives as described in more detail below."; [0104]-[0105]; [0139] note "along with the store purchase, a first tier ELink 102 is created for the buyer (the root ELink 100 is embedded or attached to the product for the initial sale)"; [0143]));
(c) receiving data based on an interaction with the respective physical object by a second buyer device associated with a second buyer (see [0034]; [0044]; [0069]note " derivative ELink (or child link)/Referring link is a new link which was created from the original ELink (parent link) that the referrer (F-013) somehow obtained (i.e. by receiving an email, SMS, WOM, or scanning a QR code, visiting a Social network site etc.). The original parent links represent a product item and its referrer (which may be the original seller), along with the whole chain of derivation/reference from the original seller (because the parent link may have another parent link and so on up to original seller)."; [0105]; [0139]-[0140]; [0143]);
(d) accessing, based on the interaction with the respective physical object from the second buyer device, the data to identify the respective product and the first buyer; processing a sale of a second product associated with the respective product to the second buyer (see [0077]-[0084]; [0105] note "a customer/buyer checks-out more than one item/product, the ELink derivation/percolation graph is used from the original link that led the customer to the very first product listing page, so participants of that chain get credited for every item purchased. See for example the attached FIG. 3, where an original root link 100 (seller) is used to sell a product A to a Friend. The generating first tier link 102 at friend A for product A is then used by Friend B to purchase product A, which in turn generates a second tier link 104 which is then reposted for subsequent sales. Thereafter if that link 104 is used by a purchaser (shopping cart) to product A from the seller using link 104 (which includes references to both Friend B and Friend A, then Friend A and Friend B would get credit from seller for the sale of product A. And, if the new purchaser using link 104 during the shopping phase initiated by this purchase, then also buys products B and C from the seller then Friend A and Friend B would also get credit for those purchases as well. The definitions and amounts of all aspects of such credits "); and
(e) automatically providing a benefit to the first buyer based on the sale of the second Product (see [0081]-[0084]; [0105]).
11. Vorotyntsev teaches the claim limitations of claim 10. Vorotyntsev 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 [0034]; [0066]; [0069]; [0120]).
12. Vorotyntsev teaches the claim limitations of claim 10. Vorotyntsev teaches wherein the benefit comprises one or more of money, a discount, a coupon, a gift, a registration, access to a venue (see [0018]-[0019]).
13. Vorotyntsev teaches the claim limitations of claim 10. Vorotyntsev 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 [0066]-[0069]; [0120]; [0139]-[0140]).
14. Vorotyntsev teaches the claim limitations of claim 10. Vorotyntsev 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]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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, 7-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vorotyntsev et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0195316) referred to hereinafter as Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto et al. (Pub. No.: JP 2006301866 A) referred to hereinafter as Makoto.
As per claims 1 and 15, Vorotyntsev teaches
- as per claim 1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
- as per claim 15. (Currently Amended) 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 [0044]):
- as per claim limitations of claims 1 and 15,
(a) storing, by a benefit-management server in a database, an association among a first buyer, a first product purchased by the first buyer and a visual code associated with the first product, the visual code being configured for optical scanning from at least one of the first product or a display of a first buyer device (see [0034] note " “ELink’ acronym that stands for “electronic link', which may manifest as […], printed code (bar code, QR code, or any other code). ELinks look like a short obfuscated code (e.g. “x6Z23a). ELinks are defined in more detail below"; [0044] note "Coupled to processing servers 24 are at least Some user databases 26 for containing various stored user data including login data, account data, transaction records etc. . . . for each of users 10 of system 20. Additionally, system 20 maintains elink databases 28 for Supporting processing servers 24 in the management and storage of the various elinks and the relationships and related stored incentives as described in more detail below."; [0104]-[0105]; [0139] note "along with the store purchase, a first tier ELink 102 is created for the buyer (the root ELink 100 is embedded or attached to the product for the initial sale)"; [0143]);
(b) receiving, by the benefit-management server associated with a purchasing service, […] indicating that a second buyer purchased a second product after a second buyer device optically scanned the visual code using a camera of the second buyer device, […] including an identifier obtained from the visual code and data identifying the second product purchased by the second buyer (see [0034]; [0044]; [0069]note " derivative ELink (or child link)/Referring link is a new link which was created from the original ELink (parent link) that the referrer (F-013) somehow obtained (i.e. by receiving an email, SMS, WOM, or scanning a QR code, visiting a Social network site etc.). The original parent links represent a product item and its referrer (which may be the original seller), along with the whole chain of derivation/reference from the original seller (because the parent link may have another parent link and so on up to original seller)."; [0105]; [0139]-[0140]; [0143]);
(c) using the identifier obtained from the visual code to retrieve the association from the database and identify the first buyer to obtain a retrieved association (see [0077]-[0084]; [0105] note "a customer/buyer checks-out more than one item/product, the ELink derivation/percolation graph is used from the original link that led the customer to the very first product listing page, so participants of that chain get credited for every item purchased. See for example the attached FIG. 3, where an original root link 100 (seller) is used to sell a product A to a Friend. The generating first tier link 102 at friend A for product A is then used by Friend B to purchase product A, which in turn generates a second tier link 104 which is then reposted for subsequent sales. Thereafter if that link 104 is used by a purchaser (shopping cart) to product A from the seller using link 104 (which includes references to both Friend B and Friend A, then Friend A and Friend B would get credit from seller for the sale of product A. And, if the new purchaser using link 104 during the shopping phase initiated by this purchase, then also buys products B and C from the seller then Friend A and Friend B would also get credit for those purchases as well. The definitions and amounts of all aspects of such credits ");
(d) responsive to […] and the retrieved association, providing a benefit to an account of the first buyer based on the second buyer having purchased the second product (see [0081]-[0084]; [0105]); and
(e) in connection with a later third purchase by the first buyer from a manufacturer or retailer of the first product, applying at least a portion of the benefit credited to the account to reduce an amount due for the later third purchase (see [0018] note "merchant/vendor can decide what form (whether in dollars, coupons for the same or different merchandise, points for redemption, etc.) that credit will be ").
Vorotyntsev expressly does not teach (b*) […] a purchase notification […] the purchase notification […]; and (d*) […] the purchase notification […].
Makoto teaches (b*) […] a purchase notification […] the purchase notification […]; and (d*) […] the purchase notification […] (see [0002]; [0035] note "If an expiration date is set, member 4 will be notified when the points are issued."; [0036] note "The product purchase history file 27 stores the product identification ID of the target product 7 obtained by the product purchase history reception processing unit 37 (described later) from the member terminal 5 of member 4 (referrer and referred person), associating it with the ID of the member 4 who made the purchase. Based on this purchase history and the aforementioned point issuance conditions, the point issuance unit 35, described later, calculates the points to be issued to the member group."; [0064] note "when the referrer A submits a registration application for the referred person B, the referral information reception unit 32 notifies the referred person B of the referrer A's dedicated URL via email or other means. Referrer A may directly notify referred person B of the dedicated URL. When referred person B purchases product 7 and applies for membership registration, they access the dedicated URL provided by referrer A as notified. This dedicated URL is an input screen (website) for product information and membership application information associated with the member ID, and the referral information reception unit 32 obtains the personal information and product ID of the referred person B entered on this input screen, along with the member ID of the referrer A").
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the foregoing suggestion of Vorotyntsev in view of the foregoing teachings of Makoto with motivation to inform one or more referees', post purchase, when their earned points expire, see at least Makoto [0035].
2. Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Vorotyntsev 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 [0034] note " “ELink’ acronym that stands for “electronic link', which may manifest as […], printed code (bar code, QR code, or any other code). ELinks look like a short obfuscated code (e.g. “x6Z23a). ELinks are defined in more detail below"; [0044] note "Coupled to processing servers 24 are at least Some user databases 26 for containing various stored user data including login data, account data, transaction records etc. . . . for each of users 10 of system 20. Additionally, system 20 maintains elink databases 28 for Supporting processing servers 24 in the management and storage of the various elinks and the relationships and related stored incentives as described in more detail below."; [0104]-[0105]; [0139] note "along with the store purchase, a first tier ELink 102 is created for the buyer (the root ELink 100 is embedded or attached to the product for the initial sale)"; [0143]).
3. Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto teaches the claim limitations of claim 2. Vorotyntsev teaches wherein the graphical object is transmitted to a first buyer device for storage and later scanning (see [0069]; [0075]-[0084]).
7. Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Vorotyntsev teaches accessing a purchasing service based on the second buyer 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 [0081]; [0105]).
8. Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Vorotyntsev 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 [0066]-[0069]; [0120]; [0139]-[0140]).
9. Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto teaches the claim limitations of claim 8. Vorotyntsev teaches wherein the communication comprises a message, a voicemail or email (see [0066]-[0069]).
6. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto and Kang et al. (Pub. No.: US2023/0401595) referred to hereinafter as Kang.
4. Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Vorotyntsev teaches further comprising: recording […] data confirming the association of the first product and the first buyer (see [0044] note “system 20 maintains elink databases 28 for Supporting processing servers 24 in the management and storage of the various elinks and the relationships and related stored incentives as described in more detail below”; [0105]).
Vorotyntsev 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 PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Vorotyntsev 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].
7. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto and Mimassi (Pub. No.: US2021/0158384).
5. Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Vorotyntsev teaches further comprising: […] a graphical object that associates the first buyer and the first product (see [0034]; [0044]; [0069]note " derivative ELink (or child link)/Referring link is a new link which was created from the original ELink (parent link) that the referrer (F-013) somehow obtained (i.e. by receiving an email, SMS, WOM, or scanning a QR code, visiting a Social network site etc.). The original parent links represent a product item and its referrer (which may be the original seller), along with the whole chain of derivation/reference from the original seller (because the parent link may have another parent link and so on up to original seller)."; [0105]; [0139]-[0140]; [0143]).
Vorotyntsev 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 PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Vorotyntsev 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].
8. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto and Cohn (Pub. No.: US2016/0328639).
16. Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto teaches the claim limitations of claim 15. Vorotyntsev teaches wherein an object associated with the first product is used to associate the first product with the first buyer […] (see [0038]; [0057]-[0067]).
Vorotyntsev 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 PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto 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. Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto and Cohn teaches the claim limitations of claim 16. Vorotyntsev 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 [0034]; [0044]; [0069]note " derivative ELink (or child link)/Referring link is a new link which was created from the original ELink (parent link) that the referrer (F-013) somehow obtained (i.e. by receiving an email, SMS, WOM, or scanning a QR code, visiting a Social network site etc.). The original parent links represent a product item and its referrer (which may be the original seller), along with the whole chain of derivation/reference from the original seller (because the parent link may have another parent link and so on up to original seller)."; [0105]; [0139]-[0140]; [0143]).
9. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vorotyntsev in view of and Cohn (Pub. No.: US2016/0328639).
18. Vorotyntsev teaches a method comprising: (a) receiving, from a mobile device [and over a wireless link with a point-of-sale device], payment data associated with a transaction for a first buyer to pay for a new product from a Merchant (see [0018]; [0019]; [0025]);
(b) identifying discount data for the transaction, the discount data existing based on the first buyer (1) previously purchasing a first product from the merchant and (2) a second buyer buying a second product 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 [0018]-[0019]; [0077]-[0084]; [0105] note "a customer/buyer checks-out more than one item/product, the ELink derivation/percolation graph is used from the original link that led the customer to the very first product listing page, so participants of that chain get credited for every item purchased. See for example the attached FIG. 3, where an original root link 100 (seller) is used to sell a product A to a Friend. The generating first tier link 102 at friend A for product A is then used by Friend B to purchase product A, which in turn generates a second tier link 104 which is then reposted for subsequent sales. Thereafter if that link 104 is used by a purchaser (shopping cart) to product A from the seller using link 104 (which includes references to both Friend B and Friend A, then Friend A and Friend B would get credit from seller for the sale of product A. And, if the new purchaser using link 104 during the shopping phase initiated by this purchase, then also buys products B and C from the seller then Friend A and Friend B would also get credit for those purchases as well. The definitions and amounts of all aspects of such credits "; [0149]);
(c) applying the discount data to the transaction to generate a remainder amount for the transaction to purchase the new product (see [0018]-[0019]; [0149] note "Activation of an account would allow a user 10 to apply their ELink rewards to other merchants’ products on the ELink platform. A profile can be linked to a bank account or PayPal."); and
(d) processing a payment of the remainder amount, if any, using the payment data (see [0018]-[0019]; [0149]).
Vorotyntsev 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 PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Vorotyntsev 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 at a POS, see at least Cohn [0149]-[0153].
19. Vorotyntsev in view of Cohn teaches the claim limitations of claim 18. Vorotyntsev teaches wherein a graphical object is configured on the first product to establish the connection between the first product and the first buyer (see [0034] note " “ELink’ acronym that stands for “electronic link', which may manifest as […], printed code (bar code, QR code, or any other code). ELinks look like a short obfuscated code (e.g. “x6Z23a). ELinks are defined in more detail below"; [0044] note "Coupled to processing servers 24 are at least Some user databases 26 for containing various stored user data including login data, account data, transaction records etc. . . . for each of users 10 of system 20. Additionally, system 20 maintains elink databases 28 for Supporting processing servers 24 in the management and storage of the various elinks and the relationships and related stored incentives as described in more detail below."; [0104]; [0105] note "a customer/buyer checks-out more than one item/product, the ELink derivation/percolation graph is used from the original link that led the customer to the very first product listing page, so participants of that chain get credited for every item purchased. See for example the attached FIG. 3, where an original root link 100 (seller) is used to sell a product A to a Friend. The generating first tier link 102 at friend A for product A is then used by Friend B to purchase product A, which in turn generates a second tier link 104 which is then reposted for subsequent sales. Thereafter if that link 104 is used by a purchaser (shopping cart) to product A from the seller using link 104 (which includes references to both Friend B and Friend A, then Friend A and Friend B would get credit from seller for the sale of product A. And, if the new purchaser using link 104 during the shopping phase initiated by this purchase, then also buys products B and C from the seller then Friend A and Friend B would also get credit for those purchases as well. The definitions and amounts of all aspects of such credits "; [0139] note "along with the store purchase, a first tier ELink 102 is created for the buyer (the root ELink 100 is embedded or attached to the product for the initial sale)"; [0143]).
20. Vorotyntsev in view of Cohn teaches the claim limitations of claim 19. Vorotyntsev 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 [0018]-[0019]; [0025]; [0022]; [0033]-[0034]).
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
10. As per 101 arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is reminded that the claims (i) must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, (ii) are to be interpreted as a whole, and (iii) the analysis is based on 2019 PEG which is now incorporated in the MPEP.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant has not delineated their arguments whether they are against prong one, prong two, or step 2B clearly. The Applicant is requested use clear headings to particularly argue moving forward which is aligned with 2019 framework utilized to evaluate claims under 101. The Applicant argues “Office Action characterizes the claims as being directed to the abstract idea of associating a first product purchase with a first consumer and providing a benefit or referral award to the first consumer. Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization oversimplifies the claims and does not evaluate the claims as a whole, as is required by the MPEP. The claims are not directed merely to referral accounting,” however, the Applicant is reminded that the evaluation under prong one is based on abstract recitation based on which the claims squarely recite an abstract idea and invoke certain method of organizing. Further, the conclusion of whether the claims are directed to the abstract idea isn’t reached until the end of prong two inquiry. Next, under prong two, indeed the claims were evaluated as a whole. As explained under prong two, merely utilizing a server to store an association between first buyer with a purchased product such that the first buyer can promote the first product to others and receive a redeemable commission for future purchase the buyer carries out, is indeed an abstract idea for which the server and user devices are utilized as tools, as explained under prong two analysis, note “claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1-5 and 7-20 at least are a visual code capable of being optical scanning, storing by a server in a database, a second buyer device scanning the visual code, server receiving notification, retrieving data from database, automatically (per claims 1, 10, and claims 15) 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 buyer 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 buyer and provide a benefit or reward or referral award to the first buyer for assisting in propagating subsequent sales of 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.” Thus, the Applicant’s characterization that executing an abstract idea with additional elements described at a high level of generality and that merely generally link the abstract idea to a network based communication environment that facilitates transmission of data associated with the abstract idea as set forth when the claims are properly construed as a whole, do not set forth a solution in computerized payments contrary to the Applicant’s assertion. Furthermore, the claims are neither like DDR nor Enfish as the unique facts of the instant claims and the noted cases are not aligned. Thus, the claims must be evaluated using 2019 PEG.
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. Furthermore, the Examiner has explained and shown that insignificant extra-solution such as data gathering to facilitate providing of a credit to the first purchaser who aids in marketing the first product are indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional activities, note “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)."; (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; and (c) collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected (FairWarning) [similarly here purchase notification when a second buyer referred by the first buyer completes a purchase is generated to retrieve from database data of the first buyer to log a credit on behalf of the first user].
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. The Applicant’s arguments are mostly moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by claim amendments. The Applicant is reminded that (i) “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because "[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).”; and (ii) “However, "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). "A factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning. . . . Rigid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). Applicants may also argue that the combination of two or more references is "hindsight" because "express" motivation to combine the references is lacking. However, there is no requirement that an "express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness." Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 402, 82 USPQ2d at 1389 ("The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against confining the obviousness analysis by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasizing the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.") See also Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339-40, 2020 USPQ2d 10476 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("[W]e hold that the Board erred when it determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Okubo with Konishi's server-side plotting to render obvious the limitation ‘software ... to transmit the map with plotted locations to the first individual.’ This combination does not represent ‘impermissible hindsight’…. Rather, because Okubo's terminal-side plotting and Konishi's server-side plotting were both well known in the art, and were the only two identified, predictable solutions for transmitting a map and plotting locations, it would have been obvious to substitute server-side plotting for terminal-side plotting in a combination of Okubo and Konishi.").”
Although, the Examiner does not agree with the Applicant’s limited characterization of Torabi because a PHOSITA would clearly understand data collection activity is monitoring purchases as well, for instance see Torabi teaches “[0038] "in various embodiments, easy access to abundant and useful product information inherently encourages data collectors to engage in data collection activities ( e.g., capturing identifiers, sharing product information). In addition, in the various embodiments described herein, the provision of one or more forms of incentives ( e.g., reward points, coupons, discounts, raffle entries) further encourages frequent and habitual use of the mobile application to engage in data collection activities. In the example described above, Product A can be a new or unfamiliar item that Alice encounters while she is perusing an ACME store. ACME has implemented a rewards program for frequent data collectors. The prospect of gaining reward points prompts Alice to use the mobile application instead of a conventional search engine to obtain more information on Product A. Meanwhile, Platform 110 is able to track Alice's data collection activities, including her interaction with Product A. For instance, Platform 110 can register Alice's initial interest in Product A and then monitor for subsequent activities (e.g., sharing the information on Product A with Bob, purchases of Product A by either Alice or Bob, etc.). These types of information provide significant and nuanced insight into consumer behavior. For instance, ACME can use this data to assess the level of consumer interest in various products, gauge the effectiveness of current product displays and promotions, etc."; [0061]-[0063] facilitate a transaction; note data collectors bespoke code is utilized [0060]; and subsequent activities such as purchase are tracked, again note [0038] and [0042]. Indeed data collection also includes tracking of subsequent activities such as purchase, see [0038], as the amount of reward is commiserate with type of activity, see [0051]. Also see [0077],” nevertheless the rejection has been updated in view of filed claim amendments. Although Torabi has been withdrawn, the Examiner may rely on it depending on future amendments.
The rejection has been updated:
4. Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Vorotyntsev et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0195316) referred to hereinafter as Vorotyntsev.
5. Claims 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vorotyntsev et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0195316) referred to hereinafter as Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto et al. (Pub. No.: ) referred to hereinafter as Makoto.
5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto and Kang et al. (Pub. No.: US2023/0401595) referred to hereinafter as Kang
6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto and Mimassi (Pub. No.: US2021/0158384).
8. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vorotyntsev in view of Makoto and Cohn (Pub. No.: US2016/0328639).
9. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vorotyntsev in view of and Cohn (Pub. No.: US2016/0328639) – as set forth above.
Next, indeed Vorotyntsev teaches contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, at least see [0034]; [0044]; [0069]note " derivative ELink (or child link)/Referring link is a new link which was created from the original ELink (parent link) that the referrer (F-013) somehow obtained (i.e. by receiving an email, SMS, WOM, or scanning a QR code, visiting a Social network site etc.). The original parent links represent a product item and its referrer (which may be the original seller), along with the whole chain of derivation/reference from the original seller (because the parent link may have another parent link and so on up to original seller)."; [0105] note “[0105] note "a customer/buyer checks-out more than one item/product, the ELink derivation/percolation graph is used from the original link that led the customer to the very first product listing page, so participants of that chain get credited for every item purchased. See for example the attached FIG. 3, where an original root link 100 (seller) is used to sell a product A to a Friend. The generating first tier link 102 at friend A for product A is then used by Friend B to purchase product A, which in turn generates a second tier link 104 which is then reposted for subsequent sales. Thereafter if that link 104 is used by a purchaser (shopping cart) to product A from the seller using link 104 (which includes references to both Friend B and Friend A, then Friend A and Friend B would get credit from seller for the sale of product A. And, if the new purchaser using link 104 during the shopping phase initiated by this purchase, then also buys products B and C from the seller then Friend A and Friend B would also get credit for those purchases as well. The definitions and amounts of all aspects of such credits”; [0139]-[0140]; [0143]. The Applicant correctly notes and argues against Cohn, as mentioning of Carlson was a typographical error. Indeed a PHOSITA would incorporate Cohn’s teachings for the feature which Cohn has been relied upon with motivation to combine as noted in the updated rejection. Also, the Applicant appears to be attacking the references individually which is improper as already noted above and there is no hindsight combining as the Examiner has relied upon the teachings as present in the references and how those would have led a PHSOITA to combine the elements being claimed by the Applicant. Accordingly, the Applicant’s arguments as set forth on pages 10-24 are either moot and/or unpersuasive as the reference(s) teach each and every element as claimed and would be obvious as a PHSOITA would be motivated to combine them as noted in the rejection.
Therefore the Examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive and respectfully maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
11. 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
- 2020/0242654
[0026] The profit sharing module 40 is connected to the merchandise transacting module 10. When the merchandise transacting module 10 detects that another potential consumer enters the transaction website through the purchase website and purchases the product item, the merchandise transacting module 10 transmits the identification code included in the purchase website to the profit sharing module 40. According to the identification code, the profit sharing module 40 rebates a cashback amount according to the identification code to the consumer linked to the identification code.
- US2014/0274318 see [0047] For example the initial purchase amount (such as $100.00) is initially stored in the wallet. The individual distributor who sold the game is typically compensated by receiving a commission on the sale. The game server is compensated by charging for the games or effectively being compensated based on the wagered amounts. The redemption of the value of the card preferably does not include this purchase amount that in the preferred embodiment must be used to play the particular game or games. Any winnings associated with game play may be redeemable. Should a player wish to redeem a card that has only been partially used with respect to the initial purchase amount, for example he still has $25.00 of the $100.00 available for game play the redemption preferably will not return the $25.00.
[0048] It is preferable that the initial value associated with the wallet is not redeemable, but other arrangements are possible or variations of this system can be used. For example perhaps it is possible to redeem a portion of the initial purchase amount at a later point in time. For example it may be acceptable to redeem a portion of the purchase amount that is retained in the wallet if it is decreased by 50% or more. The main point is the game provider wants to be compensated with respect to the initial sale of the card and any distribution fee or other fee he has provided to the distributor.
[0053] The dedicated scanning software installed on the user's computing device, such as a smartphone, leverages the computing device's native web camera functionality to scan a machine readable code such as QR code displayed on a game card.
- KR20190004588
"For example, the first buyer terminal 110 and the second buyer terminal 140 may generate a QR code or a barcode including the buyer's identification information when the buyer purchases the product at the seller's store. The seller terminal 120 can acquire the code information by scanning the QR code or the barcode generated by the first purchaser terminal 110 and the second purchaser terminal 140, respectively.
For example, the first purchaser can generate his or her own QR code or barcode at the time of installing or after installation of the reward marketing application for the purchaser by inputting personal information. At this time, the reward marketing server 130 receives the personal information of the first purchaser from the first purchaser terminal 110, and generates and transmits the code of the first purchaser to the first purchaser terminal 110. Alternatively, the first purchaser terminal 110 may generate a code according to personal information input, and then transmit the generated code to the reward marketing server 130.
For example, if the second buyer selects the posting of the first buyer among the various posts received through the second buyer terminal 140, the reward marketing server 130 generates the QR code or barcode of the second buyer, To the buyer terminal (140)."
- Pub. No.: US2023/0229288
[0371] The social post 360 can be saved locally on the computing device 300 and/or remotely by the computer system 240. For example, in response to receiving the selection 2700 of the save icon 378, the computing device 300 can transmit a request to the computer system 240 to save the social post 360 in association with the logged-in user and/or the computing device 300. In another example, the computing device 300 can maintain local data social posts that are saved in association with the user account. In such an example, saving the social post 360 can include the computing device 300 appending information for the post 360 (e.g., unique identifier for the post) to the local save post/product data. Confirmation that the post 360 has been successfully added to logged-in user's profile can be determined by the absence of an error in the adding/appending process and/or through polling the local data to verify the presence of the post 360.
[0559] The server system 4204 can receive this information and determine whether to allocate the purchase to the original creator of the post 4317. However, unlike the purchase described above with regard to FIG. 43A, the purchase in this instance is indirect with regard to the influencer—meaning that since the post 4317 was surfaced to the second user via one or more intermediaries (e.g., the first user), the purchase is not attributed to the influencer and the influencer does not receive a portion of the revenue from the purchase. For example, the server system 4204 can use the save identifier from the client computing device 4364 to obtain a unique identifier for the post (<content id> field) that was saved and a unique identifier for the user who saved it (first user). The server system 4204 can also use the unique identifier for the post to obtain an identifier for the original creator (<creator id> field), and can compare the identifier for the original creator (influencer), the user who saved the post (first user), and the user who purchased the product via the post save (second user) to determine whether the purchase was direct or indirect. The server system 4204 can determine that a product purchase is indirect when there are more than two unique user identifiers in the set of users in a chain from creation to product purchase, such as in this instance, which has three unique user identifiers (influencer, first user, and second user). However, in instances where there are two unique user identifiers in the chain, the server system 4204 can determine that the product purchase was directly attributable to the original user. In this instance, the sever system 4204 can determine that the product purchase was indirect and can log the product purchase as such (enter flag or data value to distinguish between direct and indirect attribution in the product purchase repository 4210).
[0033] As such, in all modes and operations of the system 10, each product or service, promoted by any influencer, is given a unique product identifier that can be associated with each such respective product or service on an ongoing basis for current and future tracking of influencers and their success or sales conversion rate of such products and services. In this fashion, each product or service, for which selling users will secure the services of an influencer to produce and communicate media, such as videos to social media, will have a specific product or service identifier in the system 10, which is associated with it. This product identifier can be associated with the influencers currently promoting it and doing so in the future. This allows the selling users to identify a specific individual influencer 14, by either the influencer name or identifier or by a product identifier, which has been associated with each respective influencer in the system.
[0034] With each influencer and each product and/or service all having unique identifiers, which are held in a relational database in electronic memory by the system 10, selling users who subscribe to the system 10 are provided access to the system 10 to secure the services of an influencer 16. The selling user can either identify a specific influencer they wish to use or, as noted herein, they can employ the system 10 to search for products or services to be sold by the advertiser and find the identity of influencers having an influencer identification which has been previously associated with the products and services being sold by the advertiser.
- Pub. No.: US2015/0083793
[0009] Drawing #4 shows the wrapper of the consumer product with the unique code printed on the inside of it. This code can come from the BrandScanned database or a marketer can choose to use their own unique code.
- Pub. No.: 2012/0280031
[0002] The present invention relates generally to two-dimensional quick response (QR) codes and more particularly a business method for using QR codes in connection with print advertising.
[0006] Recently, QR codes have become more prevalent in their use by marketing professionals by integrating them into both traditional and interactive campaigns. Media where QR codes have been deployed include, but are not limited to, billboard ads, marketing campaigns, in-store displays, event ticketing and tracking, trade-show management, business cards, print ads, contests, direct mail campaigns, websites, email marketing, and couponing. QR codes are of particular interest to marketers since the codes give them the ability to measure response rates with a high degree of precision. This allows for efficient and quantifiable ROI (return on investment) calculations to be used in ad expense justification and response rate measurement. For example, commercial printers offer QR code services that include creation of the QR code, printing onto direct mail pieces (or any other printed material) and back end tracking on the usage of each code. Through a proprietary system, some marketers also offer PURL's (Personalized URL's), which allow a business to create unique QR codes for each user that they are postal mailing a printed item. The tracking then can very specifically identify each individual consumer when they scan their specific code and take them to a personalized landing page that is tailored to their specific needs. This process offers an advantage to the advertiser allowing them to market down to the actual individual consumer level. The user experience is customized while tracking each user's one-to-one response at an extremely affordable price point.
*Previously presented
- 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.
- 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."
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
Prosecution Insights