DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Applicant filed Amendments on 12/16/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
5. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 14-20 are directed to a method (i.e., process) and claims 1-13 are directed to a kiosk system (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 1 recites the at least following limitations of “… to enable users to purchase user-selected greeting cards through user inputs provided …; … ; … to provide the users with options to purchase user-selected digital gift cards …; … to permit users to select via a user input a specific retailer or subject matter for the purchased user-selected digital gift cards; … to permit users to assign via user input a value to the purchased user-selected digital gift cards; … to cause the creation of the purchased user- selected greeting cards in response to user purchase of the user-selected greeting cards; … to, in response to the creation of a purchased user-selected greeting card, cause the creation of a purchased user-selected digital gift card associated with the created purchased user-selected greeting card; and … configured to digitally transmit, …, purchased digital user-selected gift cards to user-selected recipients in response to receiving payment and recipient information from the users ....” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for purchasing gift cards via a kiosk system). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “one or more computing devices”, “a kiosk processor interface”, “a payment processor”, “a printing unit”, “a digital gift card transmission unit”, “a structural housing”, “a gift card management server”, and “a computer network”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding 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). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: 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 elements of “one or more computing devices”, “a kiosk processor interface”, “a payment processor”, “a printing unit”, “a digital gift card transmission unit”, “a structural housing”, “a gift card management server”, and “a computer network” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 14:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 14 recites the at least following limitations of “… providing the user options to purchase user-selected digital gift cards; receiving from the user, via user input … a selection of a specific retailer for a user-selected digital gift card; permitting the user, via user input … to assign a value to the user-selected digital gift card; receiving payment information from the user for purchasing the user-selected greeting card and user-selected digital gift card; in response to receiving the payment information from the user: … creation of the purchased user-selected digital gift card; creating the purchased user-selected greeting card, and creating the purchased user-selected digital gift card associated with the created purchased user-selected greeting card; and providing the user options to digitally transmit, …, the purchased digital user-selected gift card to a user-selected recipient” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for purchasing gift cards via a kiosk system). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 14 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a kiosk system”, “one or more computing devices”, “a kiosk processor interface comprising at least one of the one or more computing devices and housing a structural kiosk housing”, “a computer network”, and “a gift card management server”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding 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). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: 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 elements of “a kiosk system”, “one or more computing devices”, “a kiosk processor interface comprising at least one of the one or more computing devices and housing a structural kiosk housing”, “a computer network”, and “a gift card management server” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2, 3, and 15: simply provide further definition to “the kiosk processor interface, the options to purchase user-selected greeting cards” recited in independent claims 1 and 14. Simply stating that wherein the kiosk processor interface is configured to enable the user-selected greeting cards to be selected from a selection of premade greeting cards by users using the kiosk; wherein the kiosk processor interface is configured to enable the user-selected greeting cards to be created and customized by users using the kiosk amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the kiosk processor interface).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 4 and 16: simply provide further definition to “the user-selected greeting cards” recited in independent claims 1 and 14. Simply stating that wherein the user-selected greeting cards are printable by the kiosk using the printing unit; wherein the user-selected greeting cards are printable by the kiosk using a printing unit within the structural housing and in communication with the kiosk processor interface amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the printing unit, the structural housing, the kiosk interface).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 5 and 17: simply provide further definition to “the kiosk processor interface” recited in independent claims 1 and 14. Simply stating that wherein the kiosk processor interface is configured to electronically transmit user-selected greeting cards to user-selected recipients via the computer network amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the kiosk processor interface, the computer network).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 6: simply provides further definition to “said gift card management server” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein said gift card management server is further configured to communicate to said kiosk processor interface via said computer network using:(a) a vendor management system;(b) a payment server; and(c) a vendor database; wherein: said vendor management system is configured to communicate with a plurality of vendors to submit user requests to purchase user-selected gift cards; said plurality of vendors are configured to respond to said user requests via said computer network; said vendor database is configured to store and maintain data related to said plurality of vendors; and said payment server is configured to accept payments for said gift cards amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., said gift card management server, said kiosk processor interface, said computer network using:(a) a vendor management system;(b) a payment server; and(c) a vendor database).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 7: simply provides further definition to “the user-selected gift cards” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the user-selected gift cards are merchant-agnostic and thereby useable at a plurality of different merchants does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 8: simply provides further definition to “at least one of the plurality of vendors” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein at least one of the plurality of vendors comprises a processor of payments between merchants and financial institutions, wherein created purchased user-selected gift cards associated with said at least one vendor are useable at a plurality of different merchants amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a processor) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 9: simply provides further definition to “said gift card management server” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein said gift card management server is further configured to communicate to said kiosk processor interface via said computer network using an advertising server, wherein said advertising server is configured to display advertisements on said kiosk processor interface amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., said gift card management server, said kiosk processor interface, said computer network, an advertising server) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 10: simply provides further definition to “said kiosk processor interface” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein said kiosk processor interface is a touch interface amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., said kiosk processor interface, a touch interface) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 11 and 18: simply provide further definition to “aid kiosk processor interface” recited in independent claims 1 and 14. Simply stating that wherein said kiosk processor interface is further configured to permit said user-selected gift cards to be customized by said users to include a personalized message amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., said kiosk processor interface).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 12 and 19: simply provide further definition to “said kiosk processor interface” recited in independent claims 1 and 14. Simply stating that wherein said kiosk processor interface is further configured to permit said user-selected gift cards to be customized by said users to include a personalized message amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., said kiosk processor interface).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 13 and 20: simply provide further definition to “a purchased user-selected digital gift card” recited in independent claims 1 and 14. Simply stating that wherein a purchased user-selected digital gift card comprises an electronic code do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
6. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-20 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant respectfully disagrees, and independent claims 1 and 14 have been amended to further emphasize that the recited kiosk system is housed within a physical structural housing, and that the kiosk processor interface provides recited operations through or in response to user inputs to the claimed one or more computing devices. Thus, the collection of elements of the present claims, as herein amended, implement any identified abstract idea into a practical application, namely, the customized creation and transmission of a combination of greeting cards and gift cards the creating user can provide to a designated recipient. The kiosk processor interface is comprised of at least one of the claimed one or more computing devices, and thus is a specialized computing device created to provide the multiple recited features of the present claims. Alternatively, the recited collection of components at the very least provides improvement in the functioning of a computer or of another technology or the pertinent technological field. Also, the present claims do not merely recite "apply it" to a method of human organization because they recite a collection of elements that provide a technological solution of simultaneous creation of a greeting card and gift card that did not previously exist in the relevant field … Thus, Applicant respectfully asserts that the present claims, as herein amended, do recite patent-eligible subject matter, and thus respectfully requests that this rejection be withdrawn (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-2).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that independent claims 1 and 14 at issue include additional elements of “one or more computing devices”, “a kiosk processor interface”, “a payment processor”, “a printing unit”, “a digital gift card transmission unit”, “a structural housing”, “a gift card management server”, and “a computer network”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding 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). In addition, none of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-20 in the section above.
7. 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-20 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doran et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0198726), hereinafter, “Doran”, in view of small (U.S. Patent No. 5,513,117), hereinafter, “Small”, have been considered and they are persuasive (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 2-3). Examiner notes that the amended limitations “(a) a kiosk processor interface, comprising at least one of the one or more computing devices;(e) a structural housing configured to house components (a) - (d); wherein: the kiosk processor interface is configured to enable users to purchase user-selected greeting cards through user inputs provided to the kiosk processor interface; the kiosk processor interface is configured to electronically communicate with a gift card management server through a computer network; the kiosk processor interface is configured to receive, from the gift card management server,via user input a specific retailer or subject matter for the purchased user-selected digital gift cards; the kiosk processor interface is configured to permit users to assign via user input a value to the purchased user-selected digital gift cards” of amended independent claims 1 and 14 are deemed not to be found in the prior art and updated search. Therefore, the Examiner hereby withdraws the 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections of these claims and their respective dependent claims.
Relevant Prior Art
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hansen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0117646) teach system and method for delivering and activating a virtual gift card.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
11. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696