DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 07/11/2025 has been considered.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 8 and 5 have NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim(s) 5 is amended.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 are cancelled.
Claim(s) 8 is added.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/15/2025 and 04/18/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more and thus do not satisfy the criteria for subject matter eligibility.
Step 1
Claim(s) 5 and 8 fall(s) in two of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Yes
The limitations of claim 5 recites concepts of transaction settlement data management, which falls into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claim language recites concepts of receiving, transmitting, storing receipt data and settlement transaction obtained during a purchasing transaction, and thus are concepts considered commercial practice known in the know retail business.
Claims 5 and 8 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: No
Besides the abstract idea, claim(s) 5 recite(s) the additional element:
Claim 5: “a point-of-sales (POS) terminal”, “the settlement server including a first storage and a first processor”, “the receipt server according to claim 1 including a second storage and a second processor”, “a first database configured in the first storage”, “in a second database configured in the second storage”;
Examiner does not believe the current claimed invention integrates the recited judicial exception identified under Step 2A Prong One into a practical application because the additional elements that generate receipt data including registered product data and a transaction identifier upon settlement for a transaction is considered nothing more data gathering claimed at a high level of generality; The additional elements that transmit the receipt data to the receipt server, the registered product data including at least a product identifier, a price, and a quantity for each registered product is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data transmission. The additional elements that generate settlement sales data including the transaction identifier and a user identifier but not including the registered product data is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data gathering. The additional element(s) that transmit a product data request indicating the transaction identifier and the user identifier to the receipt server is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data transmission. The additional elements that receive the receipt data and store the receipt data is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data receiving. The additional element(s) that in response to the product data request, perform a search for receipt data including the transaction identifier indicated by the product data request is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data retrieved. The additional element(s) that return the registered product data included in receipt data is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data gathering. The additional element(s) that update the found receipt data to include the user identifier indicated by the product data request is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data stored. The additional element(s) that in response to the returned registered product data, update the settlement sales data to include the returned registered product data is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data being stored. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the claim 5 is directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 5 and 8 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
The additional elements listed above on Step 2A (Prong 2) when considered both individually and in combination amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components; As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the same analysis applies here in Step 2B. Therefore, the computer components are constructed as generic computer components that performs well-understood, routine, conventional activities]’ previously known in the industry.
In addition, the court found that using a machine on its ordinary capacity, in other words, invoking a machine merely as a tool to perform an existing process do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because it is simply applying the abstract idea in a computer such as the abstracted idea listed above applied in the generic computer component(s) also listed above.
Further, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), computer functions recognized by the court as well-understood, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity: “i. 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”;
Further, see MPEP 2106.05(a), examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); iv. Recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a cellular telephone, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747; vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because “an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality,” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and; viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and thus, no indication that the claims include inventive concept.
Dependent claim 8 does not add “significantly more” to the eligibility of claim 5 and recite a more complex abstraction executed on a generic computer using well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Even when considered as an ordered combination, these dependent claims do not add significantly more than when considered individually.
Claims 5 and 8 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8 are allowed over the prior art.
After an updated searched Hajji et al. (US 20170371931 A1, hereinafter Hajji).
Hajji discloses systems and methods to complete the e-mail address of a user who requires a digital receipt relating to a transaction, see p. 69. More specifically, in Figure 1, transaction related data, including a masked PAN category, items purchased, and transaction identifier are received from the POS terminal to Payment server 5, and stored on Payment transaction database, see par. 80-81. A digital receipt is requested by the POS terminal 1 from the digital receipt server. The request includes the transaction ID (txid) used to query the payment transaction database 8 and obtain identifier proxy data items corresponding to the identifier proxy categories within the received transaction data, see par. 83-86. The dispatch history database 14 is also queried by the receipt server 10 with identifier proxy data item(s) to obtain a list of user identifier data items (email address candidates). The receipt server 10 stores the extracted identifier proxy data items/received transaction data record into the database as new records, and sends the list to POS terminal 1. The POS terminal 1 returns the selected email, and updates the new data records in the dispatch history database 14 to fill the email address into the data record created in step 119, see par. 86-96.
Hajji discloses the receipt server 10 updates new data records with customer email; but does not disclose the new data records came from POS terminal 1 without the email, and that the payment transaction server 5 sent the transaction id to be matched and the email to be included by the digital receipt server 10 in the dispatch history database 14 – “the POS terminal is configured to generate receipt data…not including a user identifier assigned by the settlement server… transmit a product data request indicating the transaction identifier and the user identifier to the receipt server… receive the receipt data from the POS terminal and store the receipt data… update the found receipt data to include the user identifier”; Therefore, the italic limitations in combination with the whole claims limitations are clearly claimed in the independent claim(s) 5 is novel and unobvious.
According claim(s) 5 and 8 are allowable over the prior art, however, a rejection under the 35 USC 101 should be overcome in order to have the current application allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to U.S.C 103 rejection have been considered, and the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection set forth under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed invention is significant more, see Remarks pages 5-7. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is not directed to pre-processing data on different networking devices, and having a server integrating these data as described on Amdocs. Instead, it is related to data gathering, transmitting, receiving, and storing between different devices. Thus, are not considered an improvement in an existing technology like the improvement found on Amdocs. Therefore, claims 5 and 8 are ineligible.
For at least those reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained, see complete rejection above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA DELIGI whose telephone number is (571)272-0503. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 07:30AM-5PM.
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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached on (571) 272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VANESSA DELIGI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627