DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s application filed on January 13, 2025 with Claims 1-20, as well as in response to Applicant’s “PRELIMINARY AMENDMENT” filed on July 28, 2025 (hereinafter “Preliminary Amendment”). In the Preliminary Amendment, Applicant cancelled Claim 19; added Claim 21; and amended no claim(s). Therefore, Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1, 12 and 20 are independent claims.
Claims 1-21 are originally presented by Applicant and, therefore, have been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits per MPEP § 819 and MPEP § 821.03.
The present application (U.S. App. No. 19/017,993), which claims benefit to U.S. Application No. 17/157,305, is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ) since both applications were filed after March 16, 2013.
Examiner notes that U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0148497 of KALWANI et al. ("Kalwani") corresponds to a published version of this patent application (i.e., U.S. App. No. 19/017,993).
Priority/Benefit Claim
No foreign priority has been claimed in this application or any parent application.
The effective priority date of the present application goes to its continuation parent (i.e., U.S. Application No. 17/157,305) and, therefore, is January 25, 2021. A later-filed application must be a patent application for an invention that is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Continuation
This application is a continuation application (CON) of U.S. Application No. 17/157,305 filed on January 25, 2021. See MPEP § 201.07. In accordance with MPEP § 609.02 A. 2 and § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. In addition, Applicant(s) is reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desires the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP § 609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant(s) is reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
CPC Classification Notes
Examiner notes CPC classifications G06Q 30/0226; G06Q 30/0231; G06Q 30/0232; G06Q 30/0233; G06Q 30/0259; and G06Q 30/0261:
G06Q 30/00 Commerce
G06Q 30/02 • Marketing; Price estimation or determination…
G06Q 30/0207 •• Discounts or incentives, e.g. coupons or rebates
G06Q 30/0224 ••• based on user history
G06Q 30/0226 ••• Incentive systems for frequent usage, e.g. …point systems
G06Q 30/0231 •••• Awarding of a frequent usage incentive independent
of the monetary value… purchased…
G06Q 30/0232 •••• Frequent usage rewards other than merchandise, cash…
G06Q 30/0233 •••• Method of redeeming a frequent usage reward
G06Q 30/0241 •• Advertisements
G06Q 30/0251 ••• Targeted advertisements
G06Q 30/0255 •••• based on user history
G06Q 30/0259 •••• based on store location
G06Q 30/0261 •••• based on user location
G06Q 30/0269 •••• based on user profile or attribute
G06Q 30/0271 ••••• Personalized advertisement
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); and 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 rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 2146 et seg. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AlA.
The USPTO’s Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is to be filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used.
The USPTO provides for submission of an eTerminal Disclaimer (eTD) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system. A web-based eTD may be filled out completely online. An eTD that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved upon submission. For more information about the eTD, please refer to https://www.uspto.gov/TerminalDisclaimer.
A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 of this application (App. No. 19/017,993) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 issued in U.S. Patent No. 12,229,795 (corresponding to U.S. Application No. 17,157,305). Although Claim 1-18 and 20-21 of this application are not identical to Claims 1-20 in U.S. Patent No. 12,229,795, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-20 of the instant application merely omit limitations found in the issued claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,795 and use some slightly different terms and phrases, such as “real-time location” instead of “current geographic location”, that are commensurate in scope. As such, Claims 1-18 and 20-21 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,795 and do not include any limitations that would not be considered obvious variants of Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,795. Thus, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate because the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one of the examined application claims (in this App. No. 19/017,993) is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) recited in U.S. Patent No. 12,229,795 because the examined application claims are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims recited in U.S. Patent No. 12,229,795.
See MPEP § 1490 for information about filing a terminal disclaimer to overcome a double patenting rejection(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-18 and 20-21 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite offering/advertising a financial promotion to a user (e.g., “a conversion rate multiplier for the particular merchant”, such as “Would you like to increase this multiplier to 4×?” per Spec. ¶ [0143], for the user to earn loyalty points/benefits) based on the user’s geographic location being “within… a geographic location of a particular merchant” — i.e., targeted financial advertising/marketing or contextual financial advertising — within the context of organizing or managing loyalty points of the user (“loyalty point management” recited in Applicant’s independent claims) — this is consistent with Applicant’s disclosure where “a particular merchant may wish to offer certain users or customers a particular multiplier” (Spec. ¶ [0083]), also see Figures 18 and 20 of Applicant’s drawings showing an offer “TO EARN 3X THE POINTS”), and “As an example, a multiplier of ‘1.5×’ indicates that for every one dollar ($1.00) spent, one-point-five (1.5) loyalty points are earned. As another example, a multiplier of ‘5×’ indicates that for every one dollar ($1.00) spent, five (5) loyalty points are earned” (Spec. ¶ [0062]) — as more particularly recited in Applicant’s pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements): a computing device; a server computer system (Claim 1) or a server (independent Claims 12 and 20); a notification; a new icon; signals including (i) a signal causing the computing device to display the new icon on the GUI, (ii) a signal causing display of a graphical user interface (GUI) of an application (e.g., on the computing device) enabling communication between the server computer system/server and the computing device; each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, transmitting, sending, updating and displaying; (only Claim 1) a server computer system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed, configure the processor to perform; (only Claims 2 and 13) the notification including an interface element; (only Claims 5 and 16) the GUI displays at least one fixed icon that cannot be changed nor selected within the GUI; (only Claims 6 and 17) the GUI displays at least one user defined icon that can be selected or changed by interacting with the GUI; (only Claims 7 and 18) the at least one user defined icon is disabled as selectable in an initial state; (only Claim 8) display selectable options on the GUI; a tap gesture has been performed on a display screen of the computing device at a location that corresponds to a location of one of the selectable options, the tap gesture indicating selection associated with the one of the selectable options; update, based on the selection, the at least one user defined icon of the GUI to display information corresponding to the selection and to enable the at least one user defined icon as selectable; and remove, based on the selection, that the user selected from the selectable options; (only Claim 10) a tap gesture has been performed on the display screen of the computing device at a location that corresponds to a location of the at least one user defined icon enabled as selectable; send, to the computing device, a signal causing the computing device to display a window; receive, from the computing device, a signal; and update the at least one icon of the GUI to display; (only Claim 11) credit an amount to a financial account based on records; (only Claim 12) at least one processor of a server; (only Claim 20) a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising processor-executable instructions which, when executed, configure at least one processor of a server; and (only Claim 21) a natural language processing engine to interpret messages received from the computing device. However, using the fact that a user’s geographic location is “within… a geographic location of a particular merchant” to offer/advertise a financial promotion to the user (e.g., “a conversion rate multiplier for the particular merchant”, such as “Would you like to increase this multiplier to 4×?” per Spec. ¶ [0143], for the user to earn loyalty points/benefits) — i.e., targeted financial advertising/marketing or contextual advertising such as when “a particular merchant may wish to offer certain users or customers a particular multiplier” (Spec. ¶ [0083] of Applicant’s disclosure) — as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; (ii) commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); and/or (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships/interactions between people. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) provides additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each claim as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of offering/advertising a financial promotion to a user based on the user’s geographic location being “within… a geographic location of a particular merchant” — targeted advertising/marketing or contextual advertising. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.”). Examiner notes that Applicant's recited use or usage of “a natural language processing engine” in Claim 21 appears as a high-level black box with no detail about the natural language algorithm itself or any machine learning process that may be associated with natural language processing (NLP), such as how Applicant's engine operates on input data (i.e., messages received”) to produce an output(s), such as an interpretation. Therefore, no specific way of interpreting messages exists within Applicant's recited use of “a natural language processing engine” in view of Spec. ¶ [0143] of Applicant’s filed disclosure. See analysis in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Case No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025), which found “The machine learning technology described…is conventional, as the…specifications demonstrate” (page 11 of Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.). Similarly, Applicant’s claims “do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning model[] to be applied” (see page 18 of Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.). Consequently, Applicant's mere recitation to “a natural language processing” concept, as currently recited in Claim 21, is not sufficient to amount to a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis. In addition, although the claims require determining “within a virtual boundary around a geographic location” such as “the user is located within a threshold distance of a particular merchant” (underlining emphasis added to ¶¶ [0030], [0040], [0049], [0122]–[0123] and [0134] of Applicant’s filed disclosure), these techniques are mathematical concepts (comparing distance values, for instance) in the form of formulas, equations, and calculations which also have been determined to constitute abstract ideas. See Memorandum, "Grouping of Abstract Ideas" and cases cited in footnote 12, such as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50). As noted on page 4 of the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” issued by the USPTO, Examiner notes that a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, in light of the specification, encompasses one or more mathematical calculations. Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a networked computer environment including a database 140, a server 120, and a user computing device 110 with a display screen/GUI, such as illustrated in Applicant’s “FIG. 1 is a schematic operation diagram illustrating an operating environment” per specification paragraph [0053] of Applicant’s filed disclosure}, and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, transmitting, sending, updating and displaying, as further explained below. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Examiner notes that each of Claims 12-18 is drawn to a method; however, the method steps do not recite, require, or indicate implementation by a particular machine since none of limitations recited in Applicant’s method claims are performed by any computer or processing device since recited use of at least one processor of a server encompasses a situation where the processor does no more than assist/help a person perform such steps/processes or thoughts when the person is using the processor remotely. Even if a computer/machine was implied, Applicant’s claim limitations taken individually and in combination would be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and would require no more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a networked computer environment including a database 140, a server 120, and a user computing device 110 with a display screen/GUI, such as illustrated in Applicant’s “FIG. 1 is a schematic operation diagram illustrating an operating environment” per specification paragraph [0053] of Applicant’s filed disclosure}, and having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of transmitting, receiving, sending and displaying, as further explained below. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in the Claims 1-11 are performed by the generically recited “at least one processor” of a server computer system, while Claim 20 is performed by the generically recited “at least one processor of a server”, these claim limitations taken individually and in combination are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a networked computer environment including a database 140, a server 120, and a user computing device 110 with a display screen/GUI, such as illustrated in Applicant’s “FIG. 1 is a schematic operation diagram illustrating an operating environment” per specification paragraph [0053] of Applicant’s filed disclosure}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, transmitting, sending, updating and displaying, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: a computing device; a server computer system (Claim 1) or a server (independent Claims 12 and 20); a notification; a new icon; signals including (i) a signal causing the computing device to display the new icon on the GUI, (ii) a signal causing display of a graphical user interface (GUI) of an application (e.g., on the computing device) enabling communication between the server computer system/server and the computing device; each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, transmitting, sending, updating and displaying; (only Claim 1) a server computer system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed, configure the processor to perform; (only Claims 2 and 13) the notification including an interface element; (only Claims 5 and 16) the GUI displays at least one fixed icon that cannot be changed nor selected within the GUI; (only Claims 6 and 17) the GUI displays at least one user defined icon that can be selected or changed by interacting with the GUI; (only Claims 7 and 18) the at least one user defined icon is disabled as selectable in an initial state; (only Claim 8) display selectable options on the GUI; a tap gesture has been performed on a display screen of the computing device at a location that corresponds to a location of one of the selectable options, the tap gesture indicating selection associated with the one of the selectable options; update, based on the selection, the at least one user defined icon of the GUI to display information corresponding to the selection and to enable the at least one user defined icon as selectable; and remove, based on the selection, that the user selected from the selectable options; (only Claim 10) a tap gesture has been performed on the display screen of the computing device at a location that corresponds to a location of the at least one user defined icon enabled as selectable; send, to the computing device, a signal causing the computing device to display a window; receive, from the computing device, a signal; and update the at least one icon of the GUI to display; (only Claim 11) credit an amount to a financial account based on records; (only Claim 12) at least one processor of a server; (only Claim 20) a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising processor-executable instructions which, when executed, configure at least one processor of a server; (only Claim 21) a natural language processing engine to interpret messages received from the computing device. However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of receiving, transmitting, sending, updating and displaying — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide conventional computer implementations known to the industry.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in the pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The steps/processes of receiving, transmitting, sending, updating and displaying, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the steps of receiving encompasses a data input/loading or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)}; each of the steps of determining encompasses a data recognition/inquiry function or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data recognition); and
each of the steps of transmitting, sending, updating and displaying encompasses a data output/transmittal function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}; and each of Applicant’s recited steps of crediting encompasses a simple accounting/financial function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., Bilski, Freddie Mac, and In re Abele}. In addition, Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure mentions that its application is “not limited to any particular operating system, system architecture, mobile device architecture, server architecture, or computer programming language” (per Spec. ¶ [0145] of Applicant’s filed disclosure), and “It will be understood that the applications, modules,… processes… or other software components implementing the described method/process may be realized using standard computer programming techniques and languages. The present application is not limited to particular processors, computer languages, computer programming conventions, data structures, or other such implementation details” (per Spec. ¶ [0146] of Applicant’s filed disclosure).
Examiner notes it may be worth noting the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, at page 7, second and sixth bullet points (July 30, 2015) regarding various well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer. Employing well-known computer functions individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the computer-implemented abstract idea in Flook (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)) to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA ) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the AIA as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0050887 of David Nelson (hereinafter “Nelson”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0316417 of Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Nelson discloses a server computer system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed, configure the at least one processor to (e.g., Figures 1A–1B of Nelson; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0029] and [0046]):
transmit, to a computing device, a signal causing display of a graphical user interface (GUI) of a loyalty point management application, enabling communication between the server computer system and the computing device (e.g., “loyalty reward programs offered by …brands/businesses” and “a visual representation of the loyalty platform… may take the form of a graphical user interface (GUI)” displayed on a mobile computing device of a user, such as a mobile phone of the user —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0005] and [0031]; “loyalty platform… communicate with user computing devices (…smart phones…)” and “user computing device may contain GPS capabilities” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0023] and [0057]; Figures 1A–1B of Nelson; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0031] and [0077]);
receive, from the computing device, real-time location data (e.g., “user computing devices (…smart phones…)” with “GPS capabilities” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0023] and [0057]; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025], [0031] and [0057]);
determine, based on the real-time location data, that the computing device is within a virtual boundary around a geographic location of a particular merchant (e.g., determine that the mobile computing device of the user is within a predetermined geographic distance of a merchant business location — “GPS capabilities” —Nelsen at ¶ [0057]; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025], [0031] and [0057]);
generate and transmit a notification to the computing device that includes an acceptance option to accept a conversion rate multiplier for the particular merchant or a particular category associated with the particular merchant and a duration defining a time period when the conversion rate multiplier is active (e.g., “businesses in a market… compete for user loyalty” —Nelsen at ¶ [0025]; “GUIs displayed on a mobile phone” and “the user may be presented offers…. rewards offered to the user… encourage loyalty selection and… encourage long-term loyalty to a business” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0077], [0025]; “notification may… include an offer to the user to make a loyalty selection to one or more businesses…” such as, for example, “to encourage business loyalty, a user may only be allowed to make a loyalty selection to one business or brand in given market” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0051] and [0025]; “categorization of businesses… into discrete markets or business segments wherein the businesses segmented into different markets… offer similar products and/or services” —Nelsen at ¶ [0037]; “offers may be temporary … as defined by the business…. offers may include temporarily higher or increased … rewards”, and a “reward including, for example, a 3× reward multiplier” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0056] and [0062]; “temporarily provides a…higher level of… rewards at 1.875%... for 0.5 years… part of a loyalty-switch offer provided to the user…. the user may receive rewards adjustments as administered by reward policies” and “reward policy may include…reward multipliers, for example, 2×, 3×, and 4×” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0074] and [0062]; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025]–[0026], [0031], [0039], [0049], [0057], [0062], [0074] and [0077]);
receive, from the computing device, a signal indicating the accepted conversion rate multiplier and the time period (e.g., “user may make a loyalty selection to a first business or brand included in a first market of the loyalty platform” —Nelsen at ¶ [0026]; “user to make a loyalty selection” such as, for example, “user may only be allowed to make a loyalty selection to one business or brand in given market” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0051] and [0025]; “offers may be temporary … as defined by the business…. offers may include temporarily higher or increased … rewards”, and a “reward including, for example, a 3× reward multiplier” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0056] and [0062]; “temporarily provides a…higher level of… rewards at 1.875%... for 0.5 years… part of a loyalty-switch offer provided to the user…. the user may receive rewards adjustments as administered by reward policies” and “reward policy may include…reward multipliers, for example, 2×, 3×, and 4×” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0074] and [0062]; “update the user's current rewards” —Nelsen at ¶ [0055]; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025]–[0026], [0028], [0031], [0039], [0049], [0055], [0057], [0062], [0074], [0077] and [0092]);
generate a new icon that includes a value of the accepted conversion rate multiplier and a label indicating the particular merchant or the particular category (e.g., “loyalty platform… communicate with user computing devices (…smart phones…)” and “a visual representation of the loyalty platform… take the form of a graphical user interface (GUI)” displayed on the mobile computing device of the user —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0023] and [0031]; “update the user's current rewards” —Nelsen at ¶ [0055]; Figure 9 of Nelsen; “update… current rewards which the user may receive… based upon any selected loyalties or loyalty switches to businesses” and “reward multipliers… 2×, 3×, and 4×” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0092] and [0062]; “inform and… display to the user the current reward which the user is entitled to via the loyalty selection made” —Nelsen at ¶ [0089]; and Nelsen at ¶ [0089]); and
send, to the computing device, a signal causing the computing device to display the new icon on the GUI (e.g., “loyalty platform… communicate with user computing devices (…smart phones…)” and “a visual representation of the loyalty platform… take the form of a graphical user interface (GUI)” displayed on the mobile computing device of the user —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0023] and [0031]; “update the user's current rewards” —Nelsen at ¶ [0055]; Figure 9 of Nelsen; “update… current rewards which the user may receive… based upon any selected loyalties or loyalty switches to businesses” and “reward multipliers… 2×, 3×, and 4×” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0092] and [0062]; “inform and… display to the user the current reward which the user is entitled to via the loyalty selection made” —Nelsen at ¶ [0089]; and Nelsen at ¶ [0089]), but Nelsen arguably fails to explicitly disclose the notification including a duration option to define the time period. Nonetheless, Wang teaches “bonus reward points multipliers…for…time durations” such as for “specific merchants within a geographical radius at which transactions by the user may result in additional bonus rewards points multipliers” (Wang at ¶¶ [0035] and [0037]) as well as providing a user with an option to input a particular time period as a duration option to define the time period for a conversion rate multiplier (e.g., “application may receive inputs from a user… indicating… a particular time period…. a user inputs into the application… the entire month of April” and “offer bonus reward points for… purchases made… during the indicated time duration” —Wang at ¶¶ [0030] and [0033]; “provide the user with an incentive to make transactions… during the indicated time period” and “provide bonus reward points multipliers for… [the] time period” —Wang at ¶ [0035]; and Wang at ¶¶ [0030] and [0033]–[0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the notification including a duration option to define the time period, as taught by Wang, into the method/system disclosed by Nelsen, which is directed toward offering “reward multipliers… 2×, 3×, and 4×” (Nelsen at ¶ [0062]) in the context of “loyalty reward programs offered by …businesses” and providing “a graphical user interface (GUI)” as “a visual representation of the loyalty platform” on the mobile computing device of the user (Nelsen at ¶¶ [0005] and [0031]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen in view of Wang as applied to Claim 1 above and Nelsen teaching wherein the notification includes an interface element for adjusting the conversion rate multiplier (e.g., adjusting “reward multipliers, for example, 2×, 3×, and 4×” —Nelsen at ¶ [0062]; “touch screen” of user computing device —Nelsen at ¶ [0031]; “a user may make a loyalty selection to a first business or brand included in a first market of the loyalty platform” —Nelsen at ¶ [0026]; “a user may be allowed to select loyalty to one or more businesses listed within a market” and “the loyalty selection comprising a selection of a business listed” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0038] and [0005]; Figure 9 of Nelsen; “categorization of businesses…into discrete markets or business segments wherein the businesses segmented into different markets…offer similar products” —Nelsen at ¶ [0037]; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025]–[0026], [0039], [0049], [0062], [0069] and [0089]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen in view of Wang as applied to Claim 1 above and Nelsen teaching wherein the instructions, when executed, further configure the at least one processor to: determine, based on historical location data, that the computing device has visited the particular merchant or has visited one or more merchants associated with the particular category a threshold number of times within an interval of time (e.g., “a history of transactions executed by a user tracked by loyalty platform 108” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0020] and [0040]; “reward policies 144 or rewards manager 112 …include…thresholds for user activity, such as how much a user spends with a business over time … which …determine adjusting the user's equity rewards over time for the business” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0075]; “user transaction history… enable the loyalty platform 108 to uniquely identify the business and operate a customer loyalty program customized for that individual business” —Nelsen at ¶ [0047]; “a market is a grouping of businesses or brands…providing similar products” —Nelsen at ¶ [0025]; “categorization of businesses…into discrete markets or business segments wherein the businesses segmented into different markets…offer similar products” —Nelsen at ¶ [0037]; Figures 1A, 6 and 9 of Nelsen; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025]–[0026], [0039], [0050]–[0051], [0069] and [0085]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen in view of Wang as applied to Claim 1 above and Nelsen teaching wherein the GUI displays at least one fixed icon associated with an anchor category or merchant that cannot be changed nor selected within the GUI and a corresponding conversion rate associated with the anchor category or merchant (e.g., “a visual representation of the loyalty platform… form of a graphical user interface (GUI)” —Nelsen at ¶ [0031]; Figures 6-9 of Nelsen; “update the user's current rewards” —Nelsen at ¶ [0055]; Figure 9 of Nelsen; “update… current rewards which the user may receive… based upon any selected loyalties or loyalty switches to businesses” and “reward multipliers… 2×, 3×, and 4×” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0092] and [0062]; “inform and… display to the user the current reward which the user is entitled to via the loyalty selection made” —Nelsen at ¶ [0089]; and Nelsen at ¶ [0089]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen in view of Wang as applied to Claim 1 above and Nelsen teaching wherein the GUI displays at least one user defined icon that can be selected or changed by interacting with the GUI (e.g., “a visual representation of the loyalty platform… form of a graphical user interface (GUI)” —Nelsen at ¶ [0031]; Figures 6-9 of Nelsen; “update the user's current rewards” —Nelsen at ¶ [0055]; Figure 9 of Nelsen; “update… current rewards which the user may receive… based upon any selected loyalties or loyalty switches to businesses” and “reward multipliers… 2×, 3×, and 4×” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0092] and [0062]; “inform and… display to the user the current reward which the user is entitled to via the loyalty selection made” —Nelsen at ¶ [0089]; and Nelsen at ¶ [0089]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen in view of Wang as applied to Claim 6 above and Nelsen teaching wherein the at least one user defined icon is disabled as selectable in an initial state (e.g., “a visual representation of the loyalty platform… form of a graphical user interface (GUI)” —Nelsen at ¶ [0031]; Figures 6-9 of Nelsen; “update the user's current rewards” —Nelsen at ¶ [0055]; Figure 9 of Nelsen; “update… current rewards which the user may receive… based upon any selected loyalties or loyalty switches to businesses” and “reward multipliers… 2×, 3×, and 4×” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0092] and [0062]; “inform and… display to the user the current reward which the user is entitled to via the loyalty selection made” —Nelsen at ¶ [0089]; and Nelsen at ¶ [0089]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen in view of Wang as applied to Claim 7 above and Nelsen teaching wherein the instructions, when executed, further configure the at least one processor to: generate a customized list of selectable options, each selectable option associated with at least one category or merchant (e.g., Figure 9 of Nelsen; “categorization of businesses…into discrete markets or business segments wherein the businesses segmented into different markets…offer similar products” —Nelsen at ¶ [0037]; “a user may be allowed to select loyalty to one or more businesses listed within a market” and “the loyalty selection comprising a selection of a business listed” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0038] and [0005]; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025]–[0026], [0039], [0069] and [0089]); display the customized list of selectable options on the GUI (e.g., Figure 9 of Nelsen; “categorization of businesses…into discrete markets or business segments wherein the businesses segmented into different markets…offer similar products” —Nelsen at ¶ [0037]; “a user may be allowed to select loyalty to one or more businesses listed within a market” and “the loyalty selection comprising a selection of a business listed” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0038] and [0005]; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025]–[0026], [0039], [0049], [0062], [0069] and [0089]); determine a tap gesture has been performed on a display screen of the computing device at a location that corresponds to a location of one of the selectable options, the tap gesture indicating selection of the at least one category or merchant associated with the one of the selectable options (e.g., Figure 9 of Nelsen; “touch screen” of user computing device —Nelsen at ¶ [0031]; “a user may make a loyalty selection to a first business or brand included in a first market of the loyalty platform” —Nelsen at ¶ [0026]; “a user may be allowed to select loyalty to one or more businesses listed within a market” and “the loyalty selection comprising a selection of a business listed” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0038] and [0005]; “update… current rewards which the user may receive… based upon any selected loyalties or loyalty switches to businesses” —Nelsen at ¶ [0092]; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025]–[0026], [0037], [0039], [0049], [0062], [0069], [0089], [0092] and [0130]); update, based on the selection, the at least one user defined icon of the GUI to display information corresponding to the selection of the at least one category or the merchant and to enable the at least one user defined icon as selectable to define a multiplier for the selection of the at least one category or merchant (e.g., Figure 9 of Nelsen; “a user may be allowed to select loyalty to one or more businesses listed within a market” and “the loyalty selection comprising a selection of a business listed” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0038] and [0005]; “update… current rewards which the user may receive… based upon any selected loyalties or loyalty switches to businesses” —Nelsen at ¶ [0092]; “accounts 114 may be updated continuously… to keep user account information updated so that a user may be able to receive up-to-date information regarding their account” —Nelsen at ¶ [0040]; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025]–[0026], [0037]–[0039], [0047], [0049], [0058], [0062], [0065], [0069], [0089], [0092] and [0130]); and remove, from the customized list and based on the selection, the category or the merchant that the user selected from the selectable options (e.g., Figure 9 of Nelsen; “a user may be allowed to select loyalty to one or more businesses listed within a market” and “the loyalty selection comprising a selection of a business listed” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0038] and [0005]; “update… current rewards which the user may receive… based upon any selected loyalties or loyalty switches to businesses” —Nelsen at ¶ [0092]; “accounts 114 may be updated continuously… to keep user account information updated so that a user may be able to receive up-to-date information regarding their account” —Nelsen at ¶ [0040]; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025]–[0026], [0037]–[0039], [0047], [0049], [0058], [0062], [0065], [0069], [0089], [0092] and [0130]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen in view of Wang as applied to Claim 8 above and Nelsen teaching wherein the instructions, when executed, further configure the at least one processor to: determine that a tap gesture has been performed on the display screen of the computing device at a location that corresponds to a location of the at least one user defined icon enabled as selectable (e.g., Figure 9 of Nelsen; “touch screen” of user computing device —Nelsen at ¶ [0031]; “a user may make a loyalty selection to a first business or brand included in a first market of the loyalty platform” —Nelsen at ¶ [0026]; “a user may be allowed to select loyalty to one or more businesses listed within a market” and “the loyalty selection comprising a selection of a business listed” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0038] and [0005]; “update… current rewards which the user may receive… based upon any selected loyalties or loyalty switches to businesses” —Nelsen at ¶ [0092]; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025]–[0026], [0037], [0039], [0049], [0062], [0069], [0089], [0092] and [0130]); send, to the computing device, a signal causing the computing device to display a window for defining the multiplier (e.g., Figure 9 of Nelsen; “touch screen” of user computing device —Nelsen at ¶ [0031]; “a user may make a loyalty selection to a first business or brand included in a first market of the loyalty platform” —Nelsen at ¶ [0026]; “a user may be allowed to select loyalty to one or more businesses listed within a market” and “the loyalty selection comprising a selection of a business listed” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0038] and [0005]; “update… current rewards which the user may receive… based upon any selected loyalties or loyalty switches to businesses” —Nelsen at ¶ [0092]; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025]–[0026], [0037], [0039], [0049], [0062], [0069], [0089], [0092] and [0130]); receive, from the computing device, a signal that includes a defined multiplier (e.g., Figure 9 of Nelsen; “touch screen” of user computing device —Nelsen at ¶ [0031]; “a user may make a loyalty selection to a first business or brand included in a first market of the loyalty platform” —Nelsen at ¶ [0026]; “a user may be allowed to select loyalty to one or more businesses listed within a market” and “the loyalty selection comprising a selection of a business listed” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0038] and [0005]; “update… current rewards which the user may receive… based upon any selected loyalties or loyalty switches to businesses” —Nelsen at ¶ [0092]; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025]–[0026], [0037], [0039], [0049], [0062], [0069], [0089], [0092] and [0130]); and update the at least one icon of the GUI to display the defined multiplier (e.g., Figure 9 of Nelsen; “touch screen” of user computing device —Nelsen at ¶ [0031]; “a user may make a loyalty selection to a first business or brand included in a first market of the loyalty platform” —Nelsen at ¶ [0026]; “a user may be allowed to select loyalty to one or more businesses listed within a market” and “the loyalty selection comprising a selection of a business listed” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0038] and [0005]; “update… current rewards which the user may receive… based upon any selected loyalties or loyalty switches to businesses” —Nelsen at ¶ [0092]; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025]–[0026], [0037], [0039], [0049], [0062], [0069], [0089], [0092] and [0130]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen in view of Wang as applied to Claim 1 above and Nelsen teaching wherein the instructions, when executed, further configure the at least one processor to: credit an amount of loyalty points to a financial account based on transaction data records indicating that a transaction has been completed involving at least one of the particular merchant or the particular category associated with the particular merchant (e.g., crediting loyalty reward points to the user’s account based on the user’s purchase transaction — Figures 6-9 of Nelsen; Nelsen at ¶¶ [0030], [0047], [0065], [0080], [0085]–[0086], [0089] and [0092]; “If a user purchase has been made at a business to which the user has selected loyalty, the platform may determine…a reward for the user for the purchase…. the platform may collect a payment equal to or greater in value than the reward from the business” and “disbursing and/or receiving payments via one or more banks, bank accounts, credit card accounts, checking accounts, online payments systems, or virtual wallets” and “allocating…reward to the account of the user” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0023], [0033] and [0065]).
Claims 12-13 and 15-18 recite substantially similar subject matter to that of respective Claims 1-2 and 4-7 and, therefore, Claims 12-13 and 15-18 are rejected on the same basis(es) as Claims 1-2 and 4-7, respectively.
Regarding Claim 20, Nelsen in view of Wang teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising processor-executable instructions which, when executed, configure at least one processor of a server (e.g., Figures 1A–1B of Nelsen; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0029]–[0036]) to perform respective processes/steps as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0050887 (“Nelson”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0316417 (“Wang”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0096976 of David W. Nelms (hereinafter “Nelms”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen in view of Wang as applied to Claim 2 above, but Nelsen fails to explicitly teach wherein the conversion rate multiplier is adjustable in exchange for a fee. However, Nelms teaches “higher award rates … can increase consumer loyalty” (Abstract of Nelms) as well as wherein a conversion rate multiplier is adjustable in exchange for a fee (e.g., “in exchange for payment… increase the award rates for purchases made at the promoted merchant. Thus… could offer 2.00% …award for… purchases… made at the promoted merchant” —Nelms at ¶ [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the conversion rate multiplier is adjustable in exchange for a fee, as taught by Nelms, into the method/system taught by Nelsen in view of Wang, which is directed toward offering “reward multipliers… 2×, 3×, and 4×” (Nelsen at ¶ [0062]) in the context of “loyalty reward programs offered by …businesses” and providing “a graphical user interface (GUI)” as “a visual representation of the loyalty platform” on the mobile computing device of the user (Nelsen at ¶¶ [0005] and [0031]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 14 recites substantially similar subject matter to that of Claim 3 and, therefore, Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis(es) as Claim 3.
Claim 9 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0050887 (“Nelson”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0316417 (“Wang”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0197575 of Ladds et al. (hereinafter “Ladds”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen in view of Wang as applied to Claim 8 above and Nelsen teaching wherein the instructions, when executed, further configure the at least one processor to: analyze historical transaction data to identify the at least one category or merchant at least by identifying that the at least one category or merchant has been added to the historical transaction data (e.g., identifying category or merchant in historic transaction data — “user loyalty and rewards platform providing rewards of equity to users based on purchasing habits” via “User transactions 132…. a history of transactions executed by a user tracked by loyalty platform 108” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0020] and [0040]; “reward policies 144 or rewards manager 112 …include…thresholds for user activity, such as how much a user spends with a business over time or cumulative user transaction value over time associated with a business which …determine adjusting the user's equity rewards over time for the business” —Nelsen at ¶¶ [0075]; “user transaction history… enable the loyalty platform 108 to uniquely identify the business and operate a customer loyalty program customized for that individual business” —Nelsen at ¶ [0047]; “a market is a grouping of businesses or brands…providing similar products” —Nelsen at ¶ [0025]; “categorization of businesses…into discrete markets or business segments wherein the businesses segmented into different markets…offer similar products” —Nelsen at ¶ [0037]; Figures 1A, 6 and 9 of Nelsen; and Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025]–[0026], [0039], [0050]–[0051], [0056]–[0057], [0069] and [0085]), but Nelsen arguably fails to explicitly disclose the adding of the at least one category or merchant to the historical transaction data having occurred at least a threshold number of times. However, Ladds teaches utilizing a user’s transaction history to provide a customized list of selectable offers based on at least one category or merchant having been added to the user’s transaction history at least a threshold number of times (e.g., “loyalty data… indicates a type of purchase (e.g., travel-related purchases, grocery store purchases, gas station purchases, online merchant purchases, etc.)…. used to generate recommendations that include purchases of the indicated type… [that] the user has made purchases from in the past based on transaction data” —Ladds at ¶ [0035]; “offers to earn loyalty points and/or earn loyalty points at an increased rate based on types of purchases, purchases from specific merchants or types of merchants, etc.)” —Ladds at ¶ [0036]; and Ladds at ¶¶ [0037], [0040] and [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the adding of the at least one category or merchant to the historical transaction data having occurred at least a threshold number of times, as taught by Ladds, into the method/system taught by Nelsen in view of Wang, which is directed toward presenting loyalty-reward offers to a user based on a threshold occurring, such as to provide targeted or relevant offers to the user triggered by the threshold, and prompting the user to make a loyalty selection from among the loyalty-reward offers displayed to the user (e.g., Nelsen at ¶¶ [0025] and [0131]; Figure 9 of Nelsen; and “reward policies 144 or rewards manager 112 …include…thresholds for user activity” —Nelsen at ¶ [0075]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 21 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0050887 (“Nelson”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0316417 (“Wang”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0310123 of DELUCA et al. (hereinafter “Deluca”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelsen in view of Wang as applied to Claim 1 above, but Nelsen fails to explicitly teach a natural language processing engine to interpret messages received from the computing device. However, Deluca teaches “customer loyalty programs that allow customer profiles to be created for repeat customers” (e.g., Deluca at ¶ [0002]) and a natural language processing engine to interpret messages received from a computing device (e.g., Deluca at ¶¶ [0026]–[0028] and [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a natural language processing engine to interpret messages received from the computing device, as taught by Deluca, into the method/system taught by Nelsen in view of Wang, which is directed toward offering loyalty reward programs (Nelsen at ¶¶ [0005] and [0031]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this Office action:
U.S. Patent No. 11,423,395 issued to Kurani et al. (hereinafter “Kurani”) for “activate a reward points multiplier based on the determination that the mobile device is at the merchant location and the determination that the merchant is participating in a multiplier promotion” —Claim 7 of Kurani.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0224800 of Bloy et al. (hereinafter “Bloy”) for “accelerators (e.g., earn rates, multipliers) associated with…customer information, and MCC codes…. accelerators that are specific to a customer…. the selection of one or more accelerators may be based on…a customer's personal selection (e.g., select two categories of merchants for which the same or different accelerators may be applied), type of category of merchant, type of category of transaction, one or more promotions, or the like.” —Bloy at ¶ [0027].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0134654 of Richard Postrel et al. (hereinafter “Postrel”) for “system may use the customer location tracking information to award points and/or coupons for products sold in an area of the store that was not visited by the consumer (e.g. “Mr. Smith, we see that you have not visited our gift card aisle—we would like to give you a $1 coupon (or double reward points) for you to make a purchase of an item from that aisle.”) This incentive will help drive shoppers to parts of a store that may otherwise suffer from low amounts of traffic.” —Postrel at ¶ [0051].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0051111 of Nelsen et al. (hereinafter “Nelsen et al.”) for loyalty selections and options to change loyalty selections within a GUI — Figures 5A and 5B of Nelsen et al.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0165704 of Mullen et al. (hereinafter “Mullen ‘704”) for “rewards computing system 404 may also vary the number of bonus points awarded on a given transaction, for example by using rewards points multiples to incentivize certain transactions. For example, rewards computing system 404 may double the number of rewards points a consumer receives for a set amount of time, such as a week, if the consumer refers a friend…. rewards multiples can apply to specific merchants, e.g., rewards earned as other incentive structures, may be implemented by rewards computing system 404” —Mullen ‘704 at ¶ [0078].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0149272 of Salmon et al. (hereinafter “Salmon”) for “provide the benefit of the merchant add-on offer via adjusting the conversion rate (745). For example, to double the value of the loyalty currency redeemed from the reward account (725), the sponsor processor (726) may specify a conversion rate (724) that is twice the average conversion rate” —Salmon at ¶ [0242]; and “offers are based on the point-of-service to offeree distance to allow the user (101) to obtain in-person services…. the offers are selected based on…the distance between the user (101) and the merchant” and “U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2009/0076896, entitled "Merchant Supplied Offer to a Consumer within a Predetermined Distance" —Salmon at ¶ [0302].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0271705 of Richard Postrel (hereinafter “Postrel”) for “…issuers and/or merchants may assign different redemption values to their reward points, and the user may request to find merchants that will redeem his points for the greatest value in proximity to his location. This would be part of the request submitted by the user via his device to the exchange computer. Merchants may make offers to redeem points at multiples of their normal value, such that a user would get double the normal redemption value for certain reward points, or triple the normal redemption value for certain other reward points, etc. These reward value multipliers may be time-constrained (e.g. only for certain days or times of day), or location-constrained (e.g. only in certain regions), or customer-constrained (e.g. only for customers matching a specified profile such as a financial profile), etc.” —Postrel at ¶ [0351].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0254038 of Jeffrey Mullen (hereinafter “Mullen ‘038”) for “Thresholds may be provided by the third party service provider such that the reward may be purchased if the purchase is made at…a particular merchant location, on a particular date, and/or a particular amount is spent on the purchase. For example, an airline may provide a user with a particular number of airline miles based on the amount of purchase and the airline may double those miles for an additional cost of $1. As per another example, an airline may provide a user with a particular amount of miles (e.g., 100) for $1 whenever a purchase is made with a payment card and, for example, an associated feature is selected for that purchase….”—Mullen ‘038 at ¶ [0006].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0150611 of ISAACSON et al. (hereinafter “Isaacson”) as cited and referred to in the non-final Office action dated 04/27/2023 of App. No. 17/157,305 (Parent Application).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0150218 of Brunner et al. (hereinafter “Brunner”) for “notice of a promotional offer may include an offer to issue the consumer an incentive or loyalty points, if the consumer chooses to accept the promotional offer. For example, a promotional offer from a restaurant may include an offer to double the number of membership rewards if the consumer accepts the offer within twenty-four hours. Accordingly, a promotional offer may include an offer to increase to point-to-currency ratio on rewards that are redeemed for the offer. For example, a sporting goods store may offer to double the value of a consumer's membership rewards toward a purchase of a particular tennis racket.” —Brunner at ¶ [0033].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0193489 of Boyd et al. (hereinafter “Boyd”) for “Points could be awarded as a multiplier (i.e., ‘Click here to double your points’)” —Boyd at ¶ [0158].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights