DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
CLAIM STATUS
2. This is a regular utility Application that claims priority to a parent application, now U.S. Patent No. 11,361,321, and to an earlier provisional application.
Response to Amendment
3. An RCE was filed together with an accompanying Amendment on January 6, 2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”) and it has been entered into the record and fully considered. The Amendment was filed in response to a Final Rejection dated October 6, 2025.
Despite the Amendment to the Claims and Applicant’s remarks, the Rejections set forth in the Final Rejection are hereby maintained; although, the Rejection under §103 is on NEW GROUNDS necessitated by the Amendment.
An explanation of the maintained Rejections and a response to Applicant’s arguments are set forth below.
The eligibility of the Claims was determined and explained in a previous Action.
Please see the “Conclusion” section of this Action below for important information regarding responding to this Action.
Any previous OBJECTIONS to the Claims are HEREBY WITHDRAWN in view of the Amendment.
Status of the Claims:
Claims 20 - 21, 23 – 24, 27 – 30, 32 – 33, and 36 – 38 remain pending in this case.
Independent Claims 20, 29, and 38 are similar in structure and scope and were amended in substantially identical fashion.
None of the dependent claims were amended in the Amendment.
Therefore, the following explanation of the maintained rejections with regard to Claim 20 is considered explanatory of the Rejection as a whole.
OFFICE NOTE: Interviews are always welcome at any stage of prosecution. Please use the AIR form for scheduling an interview if such is desired. The link for the AIR form is found at the end of this Action.
The Examiner has identified possibly allowable subject matter and an interview would be productive in advancing prosecution and achieving the goals of compact prosecution.
With regard to the Amendment:
Claim 20 has been amended as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
549
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
668
657
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Broadest reasonable interpretation:
At the present time, it appears that the words and limitations of the Claim are to be given their ordinary meaning in light of the specification. That is, no special meaning, at least at the present time, is to be given the limitations of the claim.
The specification refers to this limitation of “scan, or otherwise provide an image of, a purchase receipt” in the following provisions:
“In some embodiments, the central computer system 130 may display a prompt to the customer, via the user interface 120, to provide an identifier relating to a purchase transaction in which at least one item was previously purchased. The identifier may include, for example, an image of a purchase receipt, an e-receipt, an order number, a customer number, a UPC code, a credit card number, a telephone number, an email address, a mailing address, or any other information that may identify the purchase transaction. In some embodiments, the customer may manually input one or more identifiers via the user interface 120. In some embodiments, the user interface 120 may prompt the customer to scan, or otherwise provide an image of, the purchase receipt.
The central computer system 130 may be configured to correlate the one or more
identifiers provided by the customer to one or more product items associated with a previous purchase transaction. The central computer system 130 may then identify one or more product items to be returned. In some embodiments, the central computer system 130 may automatically identify a product item to be returned based on the one or more identifiers provided by the customer.
In some embodiments, the central computer system 130 may prompt the customer, via the user interface 120, to identify or select one or more product items to be returned and/or to provide additional product information. For example, the customer may manually enter or scan product information, via the user interface 120, or the customer may select a product item from a list of product items displayed on the user interface 120.
The central computer system 130 may then display a prompt to the customer, via the user interface 120, to provide a reason for the product item to be returned. For example, the customer may select, via the user interface 120, a reason for the product item to be returned from a list of reasons displayed on the user interface 120. In some embodiments, the customer may input, via the user interface 120, a reason for the product item to be returned.” (Emphasis Added)
Therefore, this limitation is not limited to scanning a purchase receipt but encompasses “providing” the receipt in any broad manner not specified.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION:
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 20 – 21, 23 – 24, 27 – 30, 32 – 33, and 36 – 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,697,548 to Jaff et al. (hereinafter “Jaff”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0037207 to Dejaeger (hereinafter “Dejaeger”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0122270 to Argue et al. (hereinafter “Argue”).
Argue is Applicant’s own publication and should be very familiar to Applicant.
It is in the same field as the claimed invention and is directly on point with this Claim as amended by the Amendment. The title is: Managing returns using electronic receipts
The Abstract reads as follows:
“Systems and methods are disclosed for maintaining an electronic receipt. An electronic receipt is created and stored for a transaction. The electronic receipt is updated for returns and the electronic receipt may be viewable by a user, as a number of versions of the receipt or a markup showing modifications to the transaction. To make a return, a POS may request the some or all of versions of the receipt. An item to be returned for a transaction may be evaluated with respect to the current version of the receipt to determine if the item has been previously returned. An item to be returned may be selected by a user by selecting the item on a graphical representation of the receipt displayed on the user's mobile phone or other computing device.” (Emphasis Added)
In Argue, the user – via an app on the user’s mobile phone – “provides” the return receipt to the system as illustrated in Fig. 4 as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
564
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See at least 0033 - 0036. These sections also teach the use of scanning. See also 0053 – 0055.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined return locations of Jaff in view of Dejaeger, wherein a kiosk is specifically recited and wherein the kiosk is located within a retail location and the complete return process can be carried out without human intervention, to add the scanning and providing of a receipt teachings of Argue. The motivation to make this modification comes from Jaff. As noted in the previous Final Rejection, Jaff teaches that the return can be authorized automatically and instructions provided to deliver the returned item to a return location which can be a kiosk in a convenient location. Thus, it would greatly increase the efficiency and convenience of the return processes of Jaff to add the receipt scanning and providing steps of Argue.
Thus, the existing Rejection applies to the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments set forth in the Remarks section of the Amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to §103, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
225
709
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, these arguments with respect to Jaff and Dejaeger are moot in view of the new grounds of Rejection.
Accordingly, the Rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
5. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action:
A. Search and Prior Art
The search conducted in connection with this Office Action, as well as previous Actions, encompassed the inventive concepts as defined in the Applicant’s specification. That is, the search(es) included concepts and features which are defined by the pending claims but also pertinent to significant although unclaimed subject matter. Accordingly, such search(es) were directed to the defined invention as well as the general state of the art, including references which are in the same field of endeavor as the present application as well as related fields (e.g. automated or self-serve kiosks for processing product returns).
Therefore, in addition to the above prior art references cited and applied in connection with this Office Actions, the following prior art is also made of record but not relied upon in the current rejection:
U.S. Patent No. 8,386,337 to Siegel. This reference relates to the concept of returning items purchased remotely.
U.S. Patent No. 8,676,653 to Argue et al. This reference relates to the concept of electronic receipts.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0122276 to Argue et al. This reference relates to the concept of re-printing a physical receipt.
PCT Patent Publication No. WO 2013/049788 to Fitting et al. This reference relates to the concept of a return identifier.
B. Responding to this Office Action
In view of the foregoing explanation of the scope of searches conducted in connection with the examination of this application, in preparing any response to this Action, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the entire disclosures of the above-cited, unapplied references, as well as any previously cited references. It is likely that one or more such references disclose or suggest features which Applicant may seek to claim. Moreover, for the same reasons, Applicant is encouraged to review the entire disclosures of the references applied in the foregoing rejections and not just the sections mentioned.
C. Interviews and Compact Prosecution
The Office strongly encourages interviews as an important aspect of compact prosecution. Statistics and studies have shown that prosecution can be greatly advanced by way of interviews. Indeed, in many instances, during the course of one or more interviews, the Examiner and Applicant may reach an agreement on eligible and allowable subject matter that is supported by the specification.
Interviews are especially welcomed by this examiner at any stage of the prosecution process. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool (e.g. TEAMS). To facilitate the scheduling of an interview, the Examiner requests either a phone call at the number set forth below or the use of the AIR form as follows:
USPTO Automated Interview Request http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Other forms of interview requests filed in this application may result in a delay in scheduling the interview because of the time required to appear on the Examiner's docket. Thus, a phone call or the use of the AIR form is strongly encouraged.
D. Communicating with the Office
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BUNKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0017. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30AM - 5:30PM, Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached at 571-270-1836. Information regarding the status of an application, whether published or unpublished, may be obtained from the “Patent Center” system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/William (Bill) Bunker/
U.S. Patent Examiner
AU 3691
(571) 272-0017 - office
william.bunker@uspto.gov
February 21, 2026
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691