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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The following is a non-final, First Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-36 are pending.
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.
2. The claimed invention (Claims 1-36) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mental Processes”, which has/have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in MPEP 2106.04(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because It/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
3. Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a statutory Category?
Claim 1-34: Yes, these are methods, and therefore are directed to the statutory class of process.
Claim 35: Yes, this claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is interpreted as a system because it recites at least one or more processors, and therefore are directed to the statutory class of machine.
Claim 36: Yes, system claim, which recites one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs…..), therefore is directed to the statutory class of machine and article of manufacture.
4. Step 2A prong 1, Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B:
Independent claim 36 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to an abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mental Processes”:
Limitations 1-2 of receiving an indication of a first review corresponding to a first transaction (limitation 1); and after receiving the indication of the first review corresponding to the first transaction: in accordance with a determination that the first review satisfies a first set
of one or more criteria, providing, to an account corresponding to the first transaction, a first
amount of value; and in accordance with a determination that the first review does not satisfy
the first set of one or more criteria, forgoing providing, to the account corresponding to the first transaction, the first amount of value (limitation 2) fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe the concepts of commercial or legal interactions (include subject matter relating to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions).
Further, the part of limitation 2 mentioned above of “after receiving the indication of the first review corresponding to the first transaction: in accordance with a determination that the first review satisfies a first set of one or more criteria; and in accordance with a determination that the first review does not satisfy the first set of one or more criteria” also fall within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a human being can observing/evaluating/analyzing the received indication of the first review corresponding to the first transaction to determine whether the first review satisfies a first set of one or more criteria or not
Independent claim 36, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements (i.e., one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions….) to perform abstract steps/limitations 1-2 mentioned above. The additional element(s) in all of the steps is/are -recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using a generic computer component(s) (i.e., one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions……); thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Further, in claim 36, the limitations 1 and part of limitation 2 of “receiving an indication of a first review …….” via one or more processors (limitation 1), and “providing, to an account corresponding to the fist transaction, a first amount of value” via one or more processors (part of limitation 2) are merely receiving data/ gathering data and transmitting data/ sending data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) above does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Again, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components (i.e., one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions….…) to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. see MPEP 2106.05(f). For the above-mentioned reasons, viewed the claim as a whole, the additional elements/additional limitations individually and in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Independent claim 26 (step 2B): The additional element in claim 36 (i.e., one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions…….) is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. In other word, the additional elements “i.e., one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions…” is/are amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) of steps/limitations 1-2 mentioned above; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 36, the limitations 1 and part of limitation 2 of “receiving an indication of a first review …….” via one or more processors (limitation 1), and “providing, to an account corresponding to the fist transaction, a first amount of value” via one or more processors (part of limitation 2) are merely receiving data/ gathering data and transmitting data/ sending data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea.. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When revaluating the limitations 1 and part of limitation 2 of “receiving an indication of a first review …….” via one or more processors (limitation 1), and “providing, to an account corresponding to the fist transaction, a first amount of value” via one or more processors (part of limitation 2) in step 2B here; receiving data/gathering data and sending data/transmitting data are also well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The use of generic computer to store information, transmit/display information/data and receive/gather information/data through an unspecified generic computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, and is/are considered as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Thus, evidences has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.07 (a) (III). Therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above additional steps/additional elements/additional limitations do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As per independent claims 1 and 35: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same/similar analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, a method claim 1 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 35 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same/similar reasons as the system claim(s) 36. The underlined components (i.e., a computer system; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system…..) described in independent claims 1 and 35 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. They are merely using as tools to implement the identified abstract idea and/or are general link to technological environment; and/or insignificant extra solution activities. Thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-34 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Please note that the additional underlined elements in dependent claim 8 {e.g., the first review is performed via near-field communication (NFC) or a Quck Response (QR) code} are recited as general link to technological environment because perform the first review via near-field communication (NFC) or a Quick Response (QR) code is/are not positively recited in the method claim 1 and system claims 35 and 36. In other word, the claims 1, 35 and 36 recite “receiving an indication of a first review….”. How the first review is performed/generated (claim 8) is outside of the scope of the claims 1, 35 and 36; thus, it does not impact the step of “receiving….” in the method claim 1 and does not impact the system claims 35 and 36 to perform “receiving….”. Therefore, again, the additional elements of “near-field communication (NFC) or a Quck Response (QR) code” are recited as general link to technological environment. As the result, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As the result, looking at the limitations as an ordered combinations adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-20 are also non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 13-24, 27-31 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leavenworth et al; (US 2013/0173492 A1) in view of Futty et al; (US 2012/0303438 A1):
6. Claims 1, 35 and 36: Leavenworth teaches a method and system comprising: at a computer system {At least fig. 2 in context with fig. 7}:
receiving an indication of a first review (e.g., after purchase experience data such as survey, ratings, comments, remarks in paras 0060-0062, 0066-0068, 0070-0072, 0076, 0078, 0093, 0095-0098 in context with para 0031) corresponding to a first transaction (e.g., a purchase/ transaction in paras 0061-0062 in context with para 0031) (step/limitation 1) {At least para 0060-0062, 0066-0068, 0070-0071, 0076, 0078, figs. 2-3 paras 0093, 0095-0098 especially paras 0093, 0095-0098 in context with para 0031}; and
after receiving the indication of the first review corresponding to the first transaction (step/limitation 2) {At least paras 0078, figs. 2-3 especially paras 0101-0102 in context with paras 0093-0100} :
providing, to a user (paras 0078 in context with paras 0051-0052, 0102) corresponding to the first transaction, a first amount of value (e.g., promotional offers such as discount, rebate, coupon…etc, in paras 0051-0052, 0078, 0102) (part of step/limitation 2a) {At least paras 0051-0052, 0078, 0102 in context with paras 0060-0062, 0066-0068, 0070-0071, 0076, 0078, 0093, 0095-0098}.
However, Leavenworth does not explicitly teach the underlined features: after receiving the indication of the first review corresponding to the first transaction:
in accordance with a determination that the first review satisfies a first set of one or more criteria, providing, to an account corresponding to the first transaction, a first amount of value (part of step/limitation 2a); and
in accordance with a determination that the first review does not satisfy the first set of one or more criteria, forgoing providing, to the account corresponding to the first transaction, the first amount of value (part of step/limitation 2b).
Futty teaches:
in accordance with a determination that a first review satisfies a first set of one or more criteria (e.g., see non-payment condition such as require a user post a review of a product or service to a designated webs site within a period of time after a payment transaction for the good or service. Optionally, a condition related to posting of a review could have a further requirement that the customer send a link to the review to the merchant, for ease of tracking that the non-payment condition has been satisfied…etc., in paras 0036, 0041), providing, to an account (paras 0018- 0022, 0048) corresponding to the first transaction (paras 0036, 0041), a first amount of value (e.g., coupon in paras 0036, 0041) (part of step/limitation 2a) {At least paras 0036, 0041 in context with paras 0018-0022}; and
in accordance with a determination that the first review does not satisfy the first set of one or more criteria, forgoing providing, to the account (paras 0018- 0022, 0048) corresponding to the first transaction (para 0036, 0041), the first amount of value (e.g., coupon in paras 0036, 0041) (part of step/limitation 2b) {At least paras 0036, 0041 teaches provide coupon to a user only when a non-payment condition such as require the user post a review of a product or service to a designated webs site within a period of time after a payment transaction for the good or service, and/or posting of a review could have a further requirement that the customer send a link to the review to the merchant, for ease of tracking that the non-payment condition has been satisfied…. Paras 0018-0022, 0048 especially paras 0020, 0048 teaches when a customer is entitled to receive the benefit of a post paid coupon, the benefit of the coupon can be delivered to a registered electronic payment instrument/payment account (para 0020), and the benefit to the customer can include a credit to the customer balance on the registered electronic payment instrument (para 0048). The Examiner interprets these paragraphs construe: “in accordance with a determination that the first review does not satisfy the first set of one or more criteria, forgoing providing, to the account corresponding to the first transaction, the first amount of value”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “after receiving the indication of the first review corresponding to the first transaction: providing, to a user corresponding to the first transaction, a first amount of value” of Leavenworth to include “in accordance with a determination that a first review satisfies a first set of one or more criteria, providing, to an account corresponding to the first transaction, a first amount of value; and in accordance with a determination that a first review does not satisfy the first set of one or more criteria, forgoing providing, to the account corresponding to the first transaction, the first amount of value”, taught by Futty. One would be motivated to do this since criteria/constraints/conditions guide users/customers toward specific actions or choices, making it clear what’s required to get the offer/discount, which help the customers/users understand what they can do to get the reward, reducing confusion and increasing the likelihood of engagement while enhancing the users/customers’ experience.
7. Claim 2: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first review is a customer review {Leavenworth: At least para 0060-0062, 0066-0068, 0070-0071, 0076, 0078, figs. 2-3 paras 0093, 0095-0098}, and also {Joe Futty: At least paras 0036, 0041}.
8. Claim 3: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first review is an online review {Leavenworth: At least paras 0002, 0009-0014, 0090-0098, 0101}, and also {Futty: At least para 0038}.
9. Claim 6: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first review is on a website of a merchant corresponding to the first transaction {Leavenworth: At least para 0002 in context with paras 0004, 0010}, and {Futty: At least para 0010 in context with paras 0036, 0041}.
10. Claim 7: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first review is on a social media platform {Leavenworth: At least paras 0002, 0098 in context with para 0097}.
11. Claim 9: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the indication includes an identification of a username different from the account {Leavenworth: At least paras 0078m 0055} in context with {Futty: At least paras 0036, 0041 in context with paras 0020, 0048}.
12. Claim 13: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the indication of the first review (paras 0036, 0041) is received from a merchant device (Futty: Fig. 7 see non-payment database 716 integrated with the merchant user device 706 in para 0077) {Futty: At least fig. 7 paras 0077-0078 especially para 0077 in context with paras 0036, 0041: see non-payment database 716 (integrated with the merchant user device 706) provide a listing of non-payment activities to coupon condition matching engine 702 (para 0077), wherein non-payment activities includes e.g., posting a review, survey (paras 0036, 0041)}.
13. Claim 14: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the computer system includes an input device (Leavenworth: fig. 7 paras 0095-0098 especially see para 0098, element button 754. Note that Applicant’s specification Publication US 2025/0335952 A1 paragraph 0063 define an input device such as a button, a touch sensitive surface…etc.,) , and wherein receiving the indication of the first review includes detecting, via the input device, a user input confirming that the first review has been completed {Leavenworth: At least fig. 7 paras 0095-0102 especially paras 0098-0102, see button 754. Also, fig. 2 especially para 0080 teaches customer system 204 of the customer 202 may be any mobile communication device such as a mobile phone. Fig. 7 paras 0098-0099 teach upon completion of the mechanism to provided after purchase experience data 702 (e.g., surveys/ratings/comments/feedback of the product in paras 0095-0097), the customer 202 may select the submit button 754 and submit the mechanism to the system. The Examiner interprets since the customer may submit the completed the survey/reviews of the product by submitting button 754 via the customer mobile device, there must be an input device such as a touch sensitive surface in order for the customer to do so via the mobile device}.
14. Claim 15: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 14. The combination further teaches wherein the input device is a mouse, a keyboard, a touch-sensitive surface, or a combination thereof {Leavenworth: Fig. 2 especially para 0080 teaches customer system 204 of the customer 202 may be any mobile communication device such as a mobile phone. Fig. 7 paras 0098-0099 teach upon completion of the mechanism to provided after purchase experience data 702 (e.g., surveys/ratings/comments/feedback of the product in paras 0095-0097), the customer 202 may select the submit button 754 and submit the mechanism to the system. The Examiner interprets since the customer may submit the completed the survey/reviews of the product by submitting button 754 via the customer mobile device, there must be an input device such as a touch sensitive surface in order for the customer to do so via the mobile device}.
15. Claim 16: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first transaction is performed via a physical point-of-sale device (Leavenworth: see customer purchases product in merchant’s place of business in para 0063, and see POS in para 0081 of fig. 2) {Leavenworth: At least paras 0063 in context with paras 0004, 0034 and fig. 2 para 0081}, and also {Futty: At least fig. 7 paras 0076-0077 in context with paras 0036, 0041}.
16. Claim 17: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first transaction is performed via an online store (Leavenworth: para 0063, see online) {Leavenworth: At least paras 0063 in context with paras 0004, 0034}.
17. Claim 18: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first transaction was completed via an electronic form of tender (e.g., e-wallet in para 0063) {Leavenworth: At least para 0063}.
18. Claim 19: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the account is the electronic form of tender {Leavensworth: At least para 0063}.
19. Claim 20: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first amount of value is provided via a payment system (Leavenworth: fig. 2 para 0081, see merchant system comprises processing device 238) {Leavenworth: At least fig. 2 para 0081 in context with paras 0052-0053, 0083, 0102}, and also {Futty: At least fig. 7 paras 0076-0077 in context with paras 0036, 0041}.
20. Claim 21: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first amount of value is a rebate to the first transaction {Leavenworth: At least paras 0016, 0031, 0052, 0078, 0102, see rebate}.
21. Claim 22: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the first transaction has been completed {Futty: At least paras 0036, 0041}.
22. Claim 23: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the first review was completed within a predetermined period of time of the first transaction {Futty: At least para 0036}.
23. Claim 24: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on an amount of the first transaction {Futty: At least para 0010 in context with para 0036}.
24. Claim 27: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on a purchase history (Futty: para 0024, see number of visits the customer made to the merchant in context with paras 0010, 0036 and fig. 5 para 0067) of a customer corresponding to the first transaction {Futty: At least para 0024 in context with paras 0010, 0036 and fig. 5 para 0067}.
25. Claim 28: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches receiving, from a merchant device (Futty: fig. 7 paras 0076-0077 in context with fig. 5 para 0067) different from the computer system, a configuration of an amount for a product (Futty: paras 0010, 0024 in context with fig. 5 para 0067 and fig. 7 paras 0076-0077), a service, or a combination thereof, wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the first transaction corresponds to the product, the service, or a combination thereof {Futty: At least fig. 5 para 0067, fig. 7 paras 0076-0077 in context with paras 0010, 0036, 0041}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of the combination of Leavenworth and Futty to include: “receiving, from a merchant device different from the computer system, a configuration of an amount for a product, wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the first transaction corresponds to the product”, taught by Futty. One would be motivated to do this in order to enrich the conditions/constraints/requirements for the reward (e.g., coupon) to be provided to the customer/user, this in turn would enhance the customer/user’s experience.
26. Claim 29: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 28. The combination further teaches wherein the amount is a percentage (Futty: paras 0050, 0056 in context with para 0010) {Futty: At least paras 0050, 0056 in context with paras 0010, 0036, 0041, fig. 5 para 0067}.
27. Claim 30: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 28. The combination further teaches wherein the amount is the first amount of value (Futty: para 0010, 0036, 0041 in context with paras 0050, 0056) {Futty: At least paras 0050, 0056 in context with paras 0010, 0036, 0041 and fig. 5 para 0067}.
28. Claim 31: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches after receiving the indication of the first review corresponding to the first transaction, obtaining proof that the first review has been completed, wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on the proof that the first review has been completed {Futty: At least paras 0036, 0041}.
29. Claim 34: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the computer system includes a payment system or payment authorization gateway {Leavenworth: At least fig. 2 para 0081}.
30. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leavenworth et al; (US 2013/0173492 A1) in view of Futty et al; (US 2012/0303438 A1), and further in view of Ruhl et al; (US 2006/0143158 A1):
31. Claim 4: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first review is an online review {Leavenworth: At least paras 0002, 0009-0014, 0090-0098, 0101}, and also {Futty: At least para 0038}.
However, the combination of Leavenworth and Futty does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “wherein the first review is on a search engine”.
Ruhl teaches a general concept of a review is on a search engine {At least para 0001 and 0115}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “wherein the first review is an online review” of the combination of Leavenworth and Futty to include “a review is on a search engine”, taught by Ruhl. One would be motivated to do this since displaying product review/rating on a search engine offers significant advantages for both consumers and businesses, influencing trust, conversion, and long-term product/brand reputation.
32. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leavenworth et al; (US 2013/0173492 A1) in view of Futty et al; (US 2012/0303438 A1), and further in view of Kwon et al; (US 2014/0195931 A1):
33. Claim 5: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first review is an online review {Leavenworth: At least paras 0002, 0009-0014, 0090-0098, 0101}, and also {Futty: At least para 0038}.
However, the combination of Leavenworth and Futty does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “wherein the first review is on an online directory”.
Kwon teaches a general concept of a review is on an online directory {At least para 0002}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “wherein the first review is an online review” of the combination of Leavenworth and Futty to include “a review is on an online directory”, taught by Kwon. One would be motivated to do this since displaying product reviews/ratings on an online directory offers multiple strategic advantages that can influence purchase decisions, boost trust, sales, and customer loyalty.
34. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leavenworth et al; (US 2013/0173492 A1) in view of Futty et al; (US 2012/0303438 A1), and further in view of Firestone; (US 2017/0068974 A1)
35. Claim 8: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “wherein the first review is performed via near-field communication (NFC) or a Quick Response (QR) code.”
Firestone teaches a review is performed via a Quick Response (QR) code {At least paras 0008-0010}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “the first review” of the combination of Leavenworth and Futty to include “a review is performed via a Quick Response (QR) code”, taught by Firestone. One would be motivated to do this in order to obtain reliable customer feedback that mitigates or eliminates many of the difficulties associated with prior art approaches. It utilizes common tools, such as smart phones and matrix codes, to enable customers to conveniently provide feedback and, optionally, obtain a reward at approximately the time and place where the good or service is purchased or consumed. In particular, the present invention is directed to a system for gathering customer feedback via a data input and transfer device, such as a smart phone or wireless tablet computer, capable of scanning a data representation or code, such as a matrix barcode or graphic, associated with a survey or other feedback form {Firestone: At least para 0007}.
36. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leavenworth et al; (US 2013/0173492 A1) in view of Futty et al; (US 2012/0303438 A1), and further in view of Okonkwo et al; (US 2020/0356725 A1):
37. Claim 10: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach the underlined features “wherein the indication is received via a webhook”.
Okonkwo teaches an indication of information (e.g., reviews in para 0049 in context with para 0002) is received via a webhook {At least para 0049 in context with para 0002}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “the indication” of the combination of Leavenworth and Futty to include “an indication of information (e.g., reviews) is received via a webhook”, taught by Okonkwo. One would be motivated to do this since receiving information such as product reviews through a webhook offers real-time, automated, and scalable integration, which helps to reduce manual work and obtaining the updated information (e.g., product reviews) automatically and instantly.
38. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leavenworth et al; (US 2013/0173492 A1) in view of Futty et al; (US 2012/0303438 A1), and further in view of Wong et al; (US 2018/0330410 A1):
39. Claim 11: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach the underlined features “wherein the indication includes an identification of a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)”.
Wong teaches an indication of product review includes an identification of a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) {At least Abstract, paras 0027 in context with para 0044}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “the indication” of the combination of Leavenworth and Futty to include “an indication of product review includes an identification of a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)”, taught by Wong. One would be motivated to do this since including a URL where a review took place in a product review adds significant value for both consumers and businesses such as build trust and transparency (when a review is linked to its original source, the authenticity of the review/feedback can be verified, this ensure the review is genuine and not fabricated).
40. Claim 12: The combination of Leavenworth, Futty and Wong teaches the claimed invention as in claim 11. The combination further teaches wherein the URL corresponds to a location of the first review {Wong: At least Abstract, paras 0027 in context with para 0044}.
41. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leavenworth et al; (US 2013/0173492 A1) in view of Futty et al; (US 2012/0303438 A1), and further in view of Yu; (US 2014/0067543 A1):
42. Claim 25: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on an amount of the first transaction {Futty: At least para 0010 in context with para 0036}.
However, the combination does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on an amount of value of an item in the first transaction”.
Yu teaches a general concept of a set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on an amount of value on an item in a transaction {At least para 0081, see the requirement of the consumer’s purchase for the coupon/reward is e.g., the product amount or the price be over a predefined threshold}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on an amount of the first transaction”, of the combination of Leavenworth and Futty to include “a set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on an amount of value on an item in a transaction”, taught by Yu. One would be motivated to do this in order to enrich the purchase’s requirements/ conditions for providing coupon/reward to the customer, which in turn would enhance the customer’s experience.
43. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leavenworth et al; (US 2013/0173492 A1) in view of Futty et al; (US 2012/0303438 A1), and further in view of Daicho et al; (US 2021/0182891 A1):
44. Claim 26: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on an amount of the first transaction {Futty: At least para 0010 in context with para 0036}.
However, the combination of Leavenworth does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on a record in a customer relationship management system.”
Daicho teaches a general concept of a first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on a record in a customer relationship management system (e.g., membership rank in paras 0113, 0166}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on an amount of the first transaction”, of the combination of Leavenworth and Futty to include “a first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on a record in a customer relationship management system”, taught by Daicho. One would be motivated to do this in order to enrich the purchase’s requirements/ conditions for providing coupon/reward to the customer, which in turn would enhance the customer’s experience.
45. Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leavenworth et al; (US 2013/0173492 A1) in view of Futty et al; (US 2012/0303438 A1), and further in view of Woodward et al; (US 2014/0207573 A1):
46. Claim 32: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “wherein providing the first amount of value includes reducing an amount of the first transaction”.
Woodward teaches a general concept of providing an amount of value includes reducing an amount of a transaction {At least para 0049}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “wherein providing the first amount of value” of the combination of Leavenworth and Futty to include “providing an amount of value includes reducing an amount of a transaction”, taught by Woodward. One would be motivated to do this in order to enrich the reward options (e.g., providing an amount of value includes reducing an amount of a transaction) to provide to the customer, which in turn would enhance the customer’s experience.
47. Claim 33: The combination of Leavenworth and Futty teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “wherein providing the first amount of value includes providing a refund of at least a portion of an amount corresponding to the first transaction”.
Woodward teaches a general concept of providing a refund of at least a portion of an amount corresponding to a transaction {At least para 0049}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “wherein providing the first amount of value” of the combination of Leavenworth and Futty to include “providing a refund of at least a portion of an amount corresponding to a transaction”, taught by Woodward. One would be motivated to do this in order to enrich the reward options (e.g., providing a refund of at least a portion of an amount corresponding to a transaction) to provide to the customer, which in turn would enhance the customer’s experience.
Prior Art that is pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure
48. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kazlou; (US 20200151752 A1), wherein teaches A reputation network system includes a reputation network server and at least one reputation network device; such that a listing owner store a product listing, including a feedback rebate offer; such that a contributor user store a contribution record related to the product listing; such that a consumer user purchases the product and creates a product review on the reputation network server; such that that the consumer redeems the feedback rebate offer after providing the product review. Also disclosed is a reputation network method, including creating a product listing, creating a contribution record, purchasing the product, creating a product review, and redeeming feedback rebate.
Firestone; (US 20170068974 A1), wherein teaches The present invention is directed to a system for gathering customer feedback or information via a portable data input and transfer device, such as a smart phone or tablet computer, capable of scanning a data representation or code associated with a survey or feedback form, presenting the user with said survey or feedback form, and transferring the feedback or information entered by the user to a server (Abstract), and provide reward to the customer for providing the feedback/survey (paras 0006-0007, 0013, 0015}.
Pasta; (US 2011/0258137 A1), wherein teaches A global customer satisfaction system includes point-of-sale customer feedback terminals for receiving in-store customer feedback including satisfaction ratings and other customer feedback regarding participating vendors as the customer pays for purchases. The system also includes post-sale customer feedback terminals for receiving more detailed customer feedback regarding the vendors from members after the sales have been completed. The system also includes an aggregation and dissemination system for combining the ratings received form customers into global customer satisfaction ratings for participating vendors, and disseminating the customer satisfaction information through customer satisfaction qualified directories, which are organized or searchable by geographical, type of product or service offered by the participating vendors, and other factors.
Further see other reference in PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuy Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-272-4585 and fax number is 571-273-4585. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30 am to 5: 00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The FAX 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.
/THUY N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622.
Prosecution Insights