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 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 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), 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.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, the claims recite, in part, identifying a first set of transaction categories, wherein the first set of transaction categories are determined based on transactions associated with a first time period; determining an initial point allocation scheme for the first set of transaction categories, wherein the initial point allocation scheme is associated with a particular account, wherein the initial point allocation scheme specifies how points should be distributed across the first set of transaction categories; detecting in real-time a change in transaction patterns based on a comparison between the transactions of the first time period and additional transactions associated with a second time period; identifying a second set of transaction categories of the additional transactions after detecting the change in the transaction patterns; modifying the initial point allocation scheme to generate a modified point allocation scheme for the second time period, wherein the modified point allocation scheme modifies the initial point allocation scheme to specify how points should be distributed across the second set of transaction categories, and wherein the modified point allocation scheme differently distributes the points from the initial point allocation scheme and other point allocation schemes associated with other accounts; and assigning a number of points for the second time period, wherein the number of points are assigned to the additional transactions in accordance with the modified point allocation scheme.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, recites assigning reward points to accounts based on point allocation schemes, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more specifically commercial interactions including sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of computer-implemented (claim 1), one or more processors (claims 9, 16), memory (claim 9), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 16), and computer system (claim 16). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of identifying, determining, detecting, modifying, and assigning) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using computer-implemented (claim 1), one or more processors (claims 9, 16), memory (claim 9), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 16), and computer system (claim 16) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification Paragraphs 00128, 00137, 00138, 00153, 00175, 00186, and 00187, “general purpose”); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 3-8, 10-15, 17-22 appear to merely limit modifying a base point allocation scheme, additional transactions being associated with communication data between other general purpose computing devices, retroactively assigning points for a time period, first set of transactions are selected by a general purpose user device, generating a ranking of transaction categories, and configurable specifications of a point allocation scheme, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The computer-implemented (claim 1), one or more processors (claims 9, 16), memory (claim 9), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 16), and computer system (claim 16) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of identifying, determining, detecting, modifying, and assigning, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the computer-implemented (claim 1), one or more processors (claims 9, 16), memory (claim 9), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 16), and computer system (claim 16) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 2-22 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Schmitt (U.S. Pub No. 2012/0066045). Schmitt teaches a system and method of providing rewards based on category that includes all of the limitations recited in the above claims.
Regarding claim 2, 9, 16, Schmitt teaches identifying a first set of transaction categories, wherein the first set of transaction categories are determined based on transactions associated with a first time period (Paragraph 0077, categories are based on transactions during the month of June); determining an initial point allocation scheme for the first set of transaction categories, wherein the initial point allocation scheme is associated with a particular account, wherein the initial point allocation scheme specifies how points should be distributed across the first set of transaction categories (Paragraphs 0013-0015, top categories of transactions earn higher rewards, which represents a point allocation scheme); detecting in real-time a change in transaction patterns based on a comparison between the transactions of the first time period and additional transactions associated with a second time period (Paragraph 0015, a change in spending is detected between the month of December and the month of January); identifying a second set of transaction categories of the additional transactions after detecting the change in the transaction patterns (Paragraph 0015, example given is that the categories change from gas stations, grocery stores, and dry cleaning to gas stations, grocery stored, and department stores); modifying the initial point allocation scheme to generate a modified point allocation scheme for the second time period, wherein the modified point allocation scheme modifies the initial point allocation scheme to specify how points should be distributed across the second set of transaction categories, and wherein the modified point allocation scheme differently distributes the points from the initial point allocation scheme and other point allocation schemes associated with other accounts (Paragraphs 0013-0015, the allocation scheme changes by percentage and by category); and assigning a number of points for the second time period, wherein the number of points are assigned to the additional transactions in accordance with the modified point allocation scheme (Paragraphs 0013-0015, points are assigned according to the modified scheme).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, Schmitt teaches the additional transactions are further associated with communication data between a plurality of point of sale devices and a payment processing server (Paragraphs 0012, 0044, transactions, by their nature, are “associated” with whatever system is used to conduct the transaction).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, Schmitt teaches retroactively assigning a previous number of points for the first time period, wherein the previous number of points are assigned to the transactions in accordance with the modified point allocation scheme (Paragraphs 0015, 0061, users may convert previously assigned points into currency, and after spending that currency in updated categories, the rewards will be reassigned to the new categories according to the modified point allocation scheme).
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, Schmitt teaches the first set of transaction categories are selected by a user device associated with the particular account (Paragraph 0058).
Regarding claims 7, 14, 21, Schmitt teaches assigning the number of points further includes generating a ranking of the second set of transaction categories, and wherein the number of points are assigned to the additional transactions based on the ranking (Paragraphs 0013-0015).
Regarding claims 8, 15, 22, Schmitt teaches the initial point allocation scheme is determined based on a set of configurable specifications (Paragraph 0058).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt (U.S. Pub No. 2012/0066045) in view of Lieberman (U.S. Patent No. 10,915,915).
Regarding claim 3, 10, 17, Schmitt does not appear to specify determining an initial point allocation scheme includes modifying a base point allocation scheme associated with the other accounts. However, Lieberman teaches determining an initial point allocation scheme includes modifying a base point allocation scheme associated with the other accounts (Column 9 Lines 1-36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify a base point allocation scheme as taught by Lieberman in order to further incentivize and encourage desired behavior and account usage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following reference has been cited to further show the state of the art with respect to point allocation across different categories:
U.S. Pub No. 2016/0267517 to Zachrisen
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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 at (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.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights