DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s RCE filing on 09/23/2025. Claims 1-16 and 21 are pending; claims 1-9 are withdrawn; and, claims 10-16 and 21 are examined below. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 01/04/2022.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 10-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0315035 to Johnson et al. (“Johnson”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0147645 to Alao et al. (“Alao”).
With regard to claims 21 and 10-13, Johnson discloses the claimed edge gateway for a retail transaction processing system (see e.g. [0008] gateway module connected to POS device; [0026] the gateway module may maintain up-to-date copies of various documents and other data, as well as regulate the access of data between the various POS devices and the virtual architecture.), the edge gateway comprising:
a first communication unit connected to a point-of-sale terminal and a store server via a first network (see e.g. [0029] where the gateway is capable of connecting/interfacing with local area network LAN);
a second communication unit connected to a cloud-based server via a second network different than the first network (see e.g. [0162] where the computer interfaces are capable of interacting with both LAN and WAN; [0028] connected to virtual server 110 via e.g. WAN (e.g. cloud-based architecture), local store server mediates LAN and WAN connections); and
a processor configured to (see where the gateway is referred to as a bridge/store server; [0159]):
send the transaction data to the cloud-based server for transaction processing if an operational state of the second network indicates the transaction data can be transmitted to the cloud-based server via the second network (see e.g. [0022] wherein the mobile application engine allows seamless communication between the point of sale devices and the cloud-based architecture),
cause the store server to perform transaction processing if the detected operational state of the second network indicates the transaction data cannot be transmitted to the cloud-based server via the second network (see e.g. [0010] the ability to store in local memory within the POS device which includes the gateway/bridge; [0060] In this example, each point of sale device may share transaction data with the other device, therefore if one of the devices experiences a failure then the other device includes a record of the failed device's transaction history; [0159] Embodiments of the claimed invention are practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by local and remote processing devices that are linked (either by hardwired links, wireless links, or by a combination of hardwired or wireless links) through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.).
For claim 14-15, see Johnson at e.g. Fig. 1.
While Johnson shows the structural intermediary between LAN and WAN, it lacks the dynamic control and offline/conditional logic recited in the claims 10 and 21. In particular, Johnson does not disclose the following:
detect an operational state of the second network to determine if transaction data generated by the point-of-sale terminal can be transmitted to the cloud-based server via the second network
during a synchronization process after the detected operational state of the second network becomes operational after being non-operational, send the transaction data to the cloud-based server for transaction processing and cause the store server to perform the transaction processing.
In other words, the key deficiency of Johnson is its lack of any mechanism for detecting network availability or behaving differently when the WAN//cloud is down. Alao teaches this common concept. See Alao at abstract, “The present invention further monitors the integrity and connectivity of the interactive television network and service providers.” [0166]. Alao repeatedly describes the ability for a server or intermediary component to buffer client messages for later delivery when the communication medium is unavailable or overloaded such as being off, or during a peak transmission time, rather than requiring real-time transmission. See Alao at e.g. abstract [0139-140]:
[0139] The SPS provides Offline Viewer Identification, which enables a viewer to be identified or authenticated without the need for an online viewer connection to be established. This ensures that the connection delay (e.g., 10-40 seconds) can be placed at the most appropriate place within the purchase process. This also enables viewer identification within Store and Forward situations. This function enables communications and completion of orders/operations with an STB or other client device that is intermittently on and off.
[0140] The Offline Order Form function enables the SPS to provide T-Commerce services for a viewer to be able to add items to an order form (shopping cart) without being online. The Store and Forward function is important for achieving greater scalability. Store and Forward may be either forwarding in off peak hours or simply spreading the load over a given time period after a transaction has been initiated. The full Store and Forward solution is integrated with the "Navigator", EPG or Control Task so that responses can be forwarded from any channel at any time. Store and Forward can be used for enhanced E-Commerce, T-Commerce transactions. The offline viewer authentication enables offline payment selection. Offline payment selection is provided by the Service Platform Suite to improve the purchase process and to enable use of the Store and Forward function with T-Commerce/E-Commerce.
The ‘store-and-forward’ activity described in Alao relates to the monitoring of the connection of various devices over networks, if the network is overloaded and/or intermittently off, the store function with hold/buffer the data/request until the system indicates that the request/data is to be forwarded. Hence, the store/hold message, and then forward when appropriate language. When forwarded, this is the claimed synchronization process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the transaction art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s gateway/edge server that bridges the gap between the POS and cloud based server, with various network connections, to include the ‘store and forward’ functionality of Alao, as described above, as the motivation to combine is that “This function enables communications and completion of orders/operations with an STB or other client device that is intermittently on and off.” Alao [0139]. “The Store and Forward function is important for achieving greater scalability.” Alao [0140]. “[And] to enable use of the Store and Forward function with T-Commerce/E-Commerce.” Alao [0140].
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson, Alao, in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0112880 to Yang et al. (“Yang”).
With regard to claim 16, Johnson and Alao do not teach claim 16. See Yang at e.g. abstract where one of ordinary skill in the art would have included the ability to include after synchronization, having a sync server query a remote database to compare and determine whether the local synchronization data is accurate, and whether there are differences between local and remote data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson/Alao to include such querying of local/remote data for comparison in the synchronization process, as shown in Yang, where this provides the benefit of performing slow synchronizations more quickly. See Yang, [0009].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/2025 have been fully considered.
The examiner has withdrawn the previously-made 101 rejections based on the amendments/arguments.
The examiner has brought in new references to teach the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627