DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to application no. 19/005563 filed 30 December 2024 and the preliminary amendment field 13 March 2025.
With the preliminary amendment, claim 1 was canceled and claims 2-21 were added.
Claims 2-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 2-21 are rejected as shown in this detailed action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims recite “the proprietary tax.” Examiner believes this is a typographical error and these limitations should recite “the proprietary tag” as evidenced by the previous claims and the specification’s disclosure of a proprietary tag but no mention of a proprietary tax. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-21 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.
Step 1
Claims 2-21 recite a system which is considered a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A-Prong One
(Claim 2) This claim recites the concept of tracking apparel tags to display to other users a social score of a user who purchased the apparel and to provide the purchasing user with benefits (see “an article of wearable apparel comprising an article of clothing or a fashion accessory wearable by a first user, wherein the article of wearable apparel is purchased in a transaction by the first user having a social influence score; a proprietary tag affixed to or manufactured into the article of wearable apparel, wherein the proprietary tag is configured for use by the first user using a mobile device; and a host server in communication with at least the mobile device, wherein scanning or reading the proprietary tag with the mobile device causes the host server to: (a) load the transaction to the host server, wherein (i) the article of wearable apparel is associated with one or more identifying features determined using the proprietary tag and (ii) the proprietary tag is associated with encoded information to identify the first user, the article of wearable apparel, and the transaction; (b) display, on mobile devices of other users by the host server, (i) the social influence score of the first user, (ii) the transaction by the first user, and (iii) the one or more identifying features of the article of wearable apparel; and (c) apply a social influence model to the first user to track the social influence score of the first user for delivering multiple benefits to the first user, wherein the social influence model is configured to process tracking data encoded into the proprietary tag to determine (i) the first user and (ii) a plurality of other transactions by the other users and the tracking data for each of (i) the transaction and (ii) the plurality of other transactions”). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including commercial interactions. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
(Claims 3-8 and 10-14) These claims further limit the abstract idea recited in claim 2 by further limiting where the tag is affixed, properties of the tag, and/or properties of the apparel (see, for example, “wherein the proprietary tag is affixed by the tag printed on the article of wearable apparel, the tag fastened to the article of wearable apparel, or the tag adhered to the article of wearable apparel” in claim 3, “wherein the proprietary tag comprises a proprietary image of one-dimensional features, two-dimensional features, or three-dimensional features” in claim 5, and “wherein the article of clothing comprises a pair of pants, a pair of jeans, a pair of leggings, a pair of shorts, a dress, a skirt, a top, a shirt, a blouse, an undergarment, a sweater, a jacket, a coat, or a garment wearable by the user” in claim 10). These limitations do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping because they continue to recite commercial activities. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claim 9) This claim further limits the properties of a mobile device (see “wherein the mobile device of the user or the mobile devices of the other users are configured with the camera, the imaging sensor, or the scanning device”). This claim continues to recite a commercial activity and remains within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
(Claims 15 and 16) These claims further limit the abstract idea of claim 2 by further limiting the type of data that is considered tracking data (see, for example, “wherein the tracking data comprises demographic data associated with one or more population sectors” in claim 16). These limitations do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping because they continue to recite commercial activities. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claim 17) This claim further limits the abstract idea of claim 2 by further configuring the host server to load additional data (see “wherein the host server is further configured to load the plurality of other transactions by the other users to the host server, wherein the plurality of other transactions is determined by scanning or reading the proprietary tag by the other users using mobile devices of the other users in communication with the host server”). This claim continues to recite a commercial activity and remains within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
(Claim 18) This claim further limits the abstract idea of claim 2 by determining the benefits (see “wherein the host server is further configured to determine the multiple benefits, wherein the determining is based at least on (i) the tracked social influence score of the first user and (ii) ranking up the tracked social influence score each time the proprietary tag is scanned or read by another user of the other users”). This claim continues to recite a commercial activity and remains within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, this limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic host server. For example, a human can utilize known information such as a score to determine a benefit. Thus, the claim also falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
(Claims 19 and 20) These claims further limit the abstract idea of claim 2 by delivering the benefits to a user interface (see “wherein the host server is further configured to deliver the multiple benefits to a user interface (UI) of a mobile device of the first user, wherein the UI is configured to (i) display the multiple benefits to the first user and (ii) provide interactable elements to allow the first user to interact with the multiple benefits” in claim 19 and “wherein the host server is further configured to display, on the mobile device of the first user, at least one benefit of the multiple benefits for interacting with the interactable elements of the UI by the first user” in claim 20). These claims continue to recite a commercial activity and remain within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claim 21) This claim further limits the abstract idea of claim 2 by further applying the social model (see “wherein the host server is further configured to apply the social influence model by:(a) analyzing a number of times the proprietary tag has been scanned or read by the other users;(b) analyzing a number of transactions by the other users; and(c) ranking up the tracked social influence score of the first user based at least on the analyzing in (a) and (b)”). This claim continues to recite a commercial activity and remains within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a host server and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The host server does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,071. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is anticipated by the patented claim.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,071. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is anticipated by the patented claim.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,071. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is anticipated by the patented claim.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,071. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is anticipated by the patented claim.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,071. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is anticipated by the patented claim.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,071. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is anticipated by the patented claim.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,071. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is anticipated by the patented claim.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,071. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is anticipated by the patented claim.
Conclusion
The claims are not rejected under 35 USC § 102/103. The limitations in claim 2 are not found in either a single reference nor an obvious combination of references. More specifically, the limitation “apply a social influence model to the first user to track the social influence score of the first user for delivering multiple benefits to the first user, wherein the social influence model is configured to process tracking data encoded into the proprietary tag to determine (i) the first user and (ii) a plurality of other transactions by the other users and the tracking data for each of (i) the transaction and (ii) the plurality of other transactions” is not found in the prior art. While a social media score is found in the prior art, application of a model for delivering multiple benefits to the first user wherein the model is used to determine all four recited items (i.e, the first user, a plurality of other transactions by other users, tracking data for the transaction, and tracking data for the plurality of other transaction) is not found. As indicated above, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 among other rejections. Thus, these claims are not considered allowable. Bogaard in view of Su (discussed further below) are considered the closest prior art. However, as noted above, these references to not disclose all limitations found in the independent claim. Relevant references include:
U.S. 2020/0357080 (“Bogaard”): Bogaard discloses influencer scores for determining incentives. See “The influence score (or scores) may be used in a variety of ways. Influencers benefit from influencer scores in a variety of ways. For example, consider the example of a gourmet chef who has a small following in terms of number of fans. However, the gourmet chef may have a high influence score in terms of purchases made by fans. And the gourmet chef may have a high influence score in terms of tiered influence if some of their fans have large followings. Such information may be useful for the gourmet chef in contexts outside of social media, such as in convincing a conventional book publisher to publish the chef's cookbook” in ¶ 0072.
US 2017/0161710 (“Su”): Su discloses the use of scannable clothing tags to determine a social media website of the customer and to post content to the website (see ¶ 0007 and Fig. 8).
U.S. 2014/0019225 (“Guminy”): Guminy discloses determination of a social networking influence of a user based upon entity interactions by social network connections of the user with the entity by a number of entity access channels of the entity. A determination is made as to whether the determined social networking influence of the user satisfies a reward threshold defined within a social networking influence incentive rule. In response to determining that the determined social networking influence of the user satisfies the incentive threshold defined within the social networking influence incentive rule, an incentive defined within the social networking influence incentive rule is generated for the user.
US 2021/0142425 (“Rossi”): Rossi discloses the use of a social influence model. This model it used to determine how much an advertiser should offer an user based on their social influence (see ¶ 0015).
U.S. 2017/0132688 (“Freund”): Freund discloses a system and method for pricing a product recommendation made in a social network. A value or reward is determined for a user's recommendation of a product within a social network based on multiple factors, including a level of influence in a social network for the user within a predetermined area of interest, a level of interest in the area of interest for a target audience, and consumer responsiveness to a product category for the product. An auction-related user interface provides vendors of the product the ability to select users for product recommendations based on a determined impact of those product recommendations and the value or reward to be provided for the recommendations.
US 2015/0081443 (“Davis”): Davis discloses use of an influence model indicating a user’s social influence on purchases (see ¶ 0023).
US 2018/0189526 (“Costa Botey”): Costa Botey discloses use of proximity-read tags on garments and accessories to obtain information about the garment or accessory (see claim 1).
US 2014/0095293 (“Abhyanker”): Abhyanker discloses a number of ways to tag apparel (see Fig. 8 showing apparel with the option of a NFC tag or an I-Beacon tag) wherein the tags can be scanned by users to obtain information.
U.S. 2016/0086211 (“Lynn”): Lynn discloses adjusted incentives based on an influence score. See “Because the system of the present disclosure is able to track the ripple effect impact for any customer, or work as part of a system that does, it may assign an influence score. Because it can assign an influence score, it can dynamically and autonomously adjust incentives based on that score. For example, in an embodiment, it may give a customer with a higher influence score a more substantial incentive to share. While this incentive for a customer with a lower score could exceed the CPA target, it may not exceed that target for a more influential customer with a greater potential impact. In such a manner, an organization can optimize incentives based on the potential impact of a specific customer. Additionally, in an embodiment, the system can adjust future incentives for that customer based on that customer's real-time score, which is based on their history of results through the system” in ¶ 0053.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622