DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to application no. 19/063,797, filed 26 February 2025 with a preliminary amendment filed 27 February 2025. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-40 are pending and are considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a method (process) or system (machine). The claim(s) recite(s) providing and filtering questions, asking a consumer to participate in a promotional activity, gathering data (collecting responses to the questions) and sending information to a third party.
First, asking people to participate in a poll is a commercial interaction and a fundamental business practice, each of which is among the “certain methods of organizing human activity” deemed abstract. Second, this recites human, mental work. In the absence of computers, a poll-taker can verbally ask a person questions, can filter them according how they are formatted, can verbally request participation, can gather responses verbally, and can communicate results to a third party verbally of via the post. None of this presents any practical difficulty, and none requires any technology at all.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond using a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As the claims only manipulate data pertaining to poll questions, poll responses, consumer characteristics and the like, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim.
Each independent claim includes, or includes using, a communication device including a GUI. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification is clear, ¶ 89, that nothing more than a “general purpose computer system” is required.
It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating data and sharing data with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered in ordered combination – a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps – do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The other independent claim is simply a different embodiment but is likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process. The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 22 and 32 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 23-25, 27-29, 33-35 and 37-39 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data. Claims 26 and 36 simply specify a source of data, and claims 30 and 40 consist entirely of nonfunctional printed matter, of no patentable significance and which in any case do nothing to make the invention less abstract.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
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.
Claim(s) 21, 24, 26, 30, 31, 34, 36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0246575, filed 24 March 2011) in view of Heywood (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0198338).
In-line citations are to Baldwin.
With regard to Claim 21:
Baldwin teaches: A method, comprising:
via a communication device [0066; “one or more computing devices that can receive user input and can transmit and receive data via the network”] comprising a graphical user interface (GUI): [Sheet 6, Fig. 6]
presenting a plurality of questions, wherein each question is associated with one or more graphical elements for a poll class, a poll category, a poll status, a question type, and a question format; [Sheet 6, Fig. 6; the questions are in text format, each is related to some type of category, and images are also presented]
filtering the plurality of questions according to a question format, [0063; various formats may be selected based on user activity] wherein the question format comprises a format for questions with images, [Sheet 6, Fig. 6] a format for questions with videos, [0035; “answering users 110 may respond to the question using text, HTML, video, audio, and any other communication delivery mechanisms”] and a format for questions with write-in responses; [Sheet 6, Fig. 6, see e.g. item 665]
communicating a request, to a plurality of consumers, to participate in a promotional activity; [0053; “interface 145 may display a pop-up window requesting a comment from an answering user”]
collecting any responses to one or more questions, wherein the one or more questions are selected from the plurality of questions according to personal information of a consumer… [0053; responses are collected; 0063 as cited above] and
delivering, to a third party, responses to the one or more questions. [0069; information may be shared with a “social media system”]
Baldwin does not explicitly teach that data are stored in a loyalty program, but in addition to being of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Heywood teaches a system for redemption of loyalty points [title] which uses a “database to store loyalty point information about a loyalty account associated with an account holder” and share information with sponsoring merchants. [abstract] It includes “polling” which may be done “in response to a query sent by an account holder”. [0038] Heywood and Baldwin are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing requests and responses of consumers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teaching of Heywood with that of Baldwin, as market forces at the time were increasingly driving developers to use customer loyalty programs to store all manner of information about consumers; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Heywood’s loyalty database to store information in place of Baldwin’s storage; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
In this and the subsequent claims, the content of information which is merely displayed or transmitted and then not further processed, such as “responses to the one or more questions”, consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. Referring to a location where data is stored as a “loyalty program”, without more, consists of mere labeling and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 24:
The method according to claim 21, comprising:
storing the personal information of the consumer as part of the loyalty program of a sponsor of the promotional activity; and
selecting the one or more selected questions according to the stored personal information of the loyalty program. [Heywood, as cited above in regard to claim 21]
With regard to Claim 26:
The method according to claim 21, wherein the plurality of questions are provided by an operator of a computer system. [0005; other social media users may provide questions and answers which are also seen by others]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 21. As claim 21 does not include a step of providing questions, the source of such provision is outside the scope of the claimed invention and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 30:
The method according to claim 21, comprising:
providing, to a poll sponsor, general information about one or more promotional activities;
selecting the promotional activity; [0063, as cited above in regard to claim 21] and
providing, to the poll sponsor, detailed information about the promotional activity. [Heywood, abstract, as cited above in regard to claim 21]
The content of information which is merely transmitted or displayed and then not further processed, such as “general information about one or more promotional activities” and “detailed information about the promotional activity”, consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and which is therefore considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 31:
Baldwin teaches: A system, the system comprising:
a communication device, [0066; “one or more computing devices that can receive user input and can transmit and receive data via the network”] comprising a graphical user interface (GUI), [Sheet 6, Fig. 6] configured to:
present a plurality of questions, wherein each question is associated with one or more graphical elements for a poll class, a poll category, a poll status, a question type, and a question format; [Sheet 6, Fig. 6; the questions are in text format, each is related to some type of category, and images are also presented]
filter the plurality of questions according to a question format, [0063; various formats may be selected based on user activity] wherein the question format comprises a format for questions with images, [Sheet 6, Fig. 6] a format for questions with videos, [0035; “answering users 110 may respond to the question using text, HTML, video, audio, and any other communication delivery mechanisms”] and a format for questions with write-in responses; [Sheet 6, Fig. 6, see e.g. item 665]
communicate a request, to a plurality of consumers, to participate in a promotional activity; [0053; “interface 145 may display a pop-up window requesting a comment from an answering user”]
collect any responses to one or more questions, wherein the one or more questions are selected from the plurality of questions according to personal information of a consumer… [0053; responses are collected; 0063 as cited above] and
deliver, to a third party, responses to the one or more questions. [0069; information may be shared with a “social media system”]
Baldwin does not explicitly teach that data are stored in a loyalty program, but in addition to being of no patentable significance as explained above, it is known in the art. Heywood teaches a system for redemption of loyalty points [title] which uses a “database to store loyalty point information about a loyalty account associated with an account holder” and share information with sponsoring merchants. [abstract] It includes “polling” which may be done “in response to a query sent by an account holder”. [0038] Heywood and Baldwin are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing requests and responses of consumers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teaching of Heywood with that of Baldwin, as market forces at the time were increasingly driving developers to use customer loyalty programs to store all manner of information about consumers; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Heywood’s loyalty database to store information in place of Baldwin’s storage; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 34:
The system according to claim 31, wherein the personal information of the consumer is stored as part of the loyalty program of a sponsor of the promotional activity. [Heywood, as cited above in regard to claim 31]
With regard to Claim 36:
The system according to claim 31, wherein the plurality of questions are provided by an operator of a computer system. [0005; other social media users may provide questions and answers which are also seen by others]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 31. As claim 31 does not include a step of providing questions, the source of such provision is outside the scope of the claimed invention and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 40:
The system according to claim 31, wherein the promotional activity is selected, by a poll sponsor, according to general information about one or more promotional activities. [Heywood, abstract, as cited above in regard to claim 31]
Claim(s) 22, 25, 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. in view of Heywood further in view of Akhter et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0101883).
Claims 22 and 32 are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 22:
The method according to claim 21, comprising determining whether the consumer can participate in the promotional activity according to a previous response of the consumer.
With regard to Claim 32:
The system according to claim 31, wherein the GUI allows the consumer to participate in the promotional activity according to a previous response of the consumer.
Baldwin and Heywood teach the method of claim 21 and system of claim 31 but do not explicitly use a consumer response to determine participation, but it is known in the art. Akhter teaches a smart-phone user reward system [title] in which “members may consent to participate in one or more surveys that may be furnished to them”, perhaps based on “demographic information” so that the “surveys may be made relevant to the user”. [0239] Akhter and Baldwin are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for polling consumers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teaching of Akhter with that of Baldwin and Heywood in order to provide relevant questions, as taught by Akhter; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply determining a respondent in the manner of Akhter in place of, or in addition to, that of Baldwin; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 25:
The method according to claim 21, comprising:
accessing the personal information of the consumer in response to the request to participate in the promotional activity; and
selecting the one or more selected questions according to the accessed personal information. [Akhter, as cited above in regard to claim 22; selecting surveys relevant to a user based on user information reads on this]
With regard to Claim 35:
The system according to claim 31, wherein the personal information of the consumer is accessed in response to the request to participate in the promotional activity. [Akhter, as cited above in regard to claim 32; selecting surveys relevant to a user based on user information reads on this]
Claim(s) 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. in view of Heywood further in view of Ransom et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0228617).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 23:
The method according to claim 21, comprising identifying, from contests, sweepstakes, instant wins, and giveaways supported by an e-commerce platform, one or more of the contests, the sweepstakes, the instant wins, and the giveaways that are suitable for polling according to input from a poll sponsor.
With regard to Claim 33:
The system according to claim 31, wherein the promotional activity is one of a contest, a sweepstakes, an instant win, and the give-away that are suitable for polling.
Baldwin and Heywood teach the method of claim 21 and system of claim 31, including that information may come from a sponsor such as a merchant, [e.g. Heywood, abstract] and the use of an e-commerce platform, [e.g. Heywood, 0023; that a system may provide a “website for opening a new loyalty account” reads on it being an e-commerce platform] but do not explicitly teach the use of contests, sweepstakes, instant wins and giveaways, but it is known in the art.
Ransom teaches a social media promotion system [title] that interacts with users in various ways such as by providing “survey questions”. [abstract] It provides “different types of promotions” such as “contests”, “sweepstakes”, “giveaways” and “instant win games” in order to “drive purchases”. [0004] Ransom and Baldwin are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for polling consumers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teaching of Ransom with that of Baldwin and Heywood in order to drive purchases, as taught by Ransom; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Ransom’s criteria in place of, or in addition to, the criteria of Baldwin; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim 33 is not patentably distinct from claim 31 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed system. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 27, 28, 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. in view of Heywood further in view of Glore, Jr. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0088170).
Claims 27 and 37 are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 27:
The method according to claim 21, comprising:
receiving, from a poll sponsor, one or more characteristics common to a group of consumers; and
determining whether the consumer can participate in the promotional activity according to the one or more characteristics received from the poll sponsor.
With regard to Claim 37:
The system according to claim 31, wherein the GUI allows the consumer to participate in the promotional activity according to a satisfaction of one or more characteristics, as received from a poll sponsor.
Baldwin and Heywood teach the method of claim 21 and system of claim 31, including the use of poll sponsors and determining whether a person will participate in a promotional activity as cited above, but do not explicitly teach the use of common characteristics, but it is known in the art. Glore teaches a system for managing Internet advertising and promotional content [title] which makes use of “sponsored surveys”. [0094] Members may “opt-in” to a system for providing rewards in exchange for opinions and may be selected if their “demographics and preferences match” those determined by the sponsor. [0096] Glore and Baldwin are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for polling users.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teaching of Glore with that of Baldwin and Heywood in order to allow sponsors to determine participants, as taught by Glore; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply determining a respondent in the manner of Glore in place of, or in addition to, that of Baldwin; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 28:
The method according to claim 21, comprising:
receiving, from a poll sponsor, common characteristics of a targeted group of consumers;
identifying the promotional activity according to the targeted group of consumers having the common characteristics; and
determining whether the consumer can participate in the promotional activity according to the one or more characteristics received from the poll sponsor. [Glore, as cited above in regard to claim 27]
With regard to Claim 38:
The system according to claim 31, wherein the GUI presents the promotional activity according to one or more characteristics, associated with a group of consumers targeted by a poll sponsor. [Glore, as cited above in regard to claim 37]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 31 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and is therefore considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 29 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. in view of Heywood further in view of Luzardo (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0112678).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 29:
The method according to claim 21, comprising:
managing a flow and an order of operations to be performed by multiple departments of an entity corresponding to the promotional activity according to the information received from a poll sponsor, wherein each department is not involved in the promotional activity until one or more prerequisites of respective department are met and one or more respective approvals are secured.
With regard to Claim 39:
The system according to claim 31, wherein the GUI presents a flow and an order of operations to be performed by multiple departments according to information received from a poll sponsor, and wherein each department is not involved in the promotional activity until one or more prerequisites of respective department are met and one or more respective approvals are secured.
Baldwin and Heywood teach the method of claim 21 and system of claim 31, but do not explicitly teach this management, but it is known in the art. Luzardo teaches a knowledge management system [title] that manages “tasks” in a “flow”. [0210] Tasks may be performed by a variety of departments or other business units. [0043] Personnel may be asked to respond to a “survey” in order to assess current processes. [0253] Luzardo and Baldwin are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for polling users.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teaching of Luzardo with that of Baldwin and Heywood in order to improve processes, as taught by Luzardo; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using poll or survey data for Luzardo’s purpose rather than, or in addition to, that of Baldwin; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
The phrase “wherein each department is not involved in the promotional activity until one or more prerequisites of respective department are met and one or more respective approvals are secured” purports to limit departments rather than the claimed method or system, imparts neither structure nor functionality thereto, and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights