Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 2-20 are new
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
The rejection under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn.
Response to Applicant Remarks
Applicant’s well-articulated remarks have been considered but are unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claim as amended presents patent eligible additional elements beyond the abstract idea. (Applicant’s 10/8/25 remarks, p.9, “With regard to Claim 1, the “additional elements include”, for example:
permanently store an original record of the payment transaction, the original record including (i) electronic purchase data, without alteration, (ii) identification of a time when the electronic purchase data was obtained, and (iii) the third-party source from where electronic purchase data was obtained...
provide an interface to enable a third-party submitter to submit verification codes
in response to receiving a verification code, (i) determine that the verification code corresponds to the verification identifier; and (ii)
provide content that includes the electronic receipt, including the supplemental information
As mentioned, the aforementioned features are specific, technical, not extra- solution activity, and extend beyond the capabilities of the human mind. As such, the features are not abstract.”) The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although the claims recites the use of a computer and the data elements are “electronic”, the examiner respectfully suggests that is only takes an abstract idea and applies it in a particular electronic environment. A human is capable of aggregating and storing receipt information and further adding supplemental information to such a record. A human could assign access credentials to the information and offer the information when the credentials are proffered and verified.
Applicant’s amendments are addressed by the newly cited art.
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.
Claims 1-20 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. Regarding independent claims 1, 11, 18 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of storing receipt data which is a mental process. Other than reciting a computer nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the computer the limitations on obtain purchase data, store record of payment transaction, generate receipt, generating supplemental information to identify reimbursement or tax deduction, verify code and provide receipt and supplemental information is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally but for the recitation of generic computer elements. If claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further the above limitations related to storing receipt data stripped of the identified additional and insignificant elements could also be considered a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to the managing human behavior and interactions. (fundamental economic practice). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process or method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims do 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 a computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”).] The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the receipt storage steps. The subject matter of claims 2/12 (verify receipt), 3/13 (generate identifier after data is obtained), 4/5/9/14 (data format), 6 (card issuing financial institution device), 7/15/19 (code is a barcode or QR), 8/16/20 (code is with receipt), 10/17 (original record includes origination information)
appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4,6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lay 20090271265 in view of Mastie 20070094088 in view of Spero 20040083134
Regarding Claim 1,
a memory, the memory storing a set of instructions; one or more processors that execute the set of instructions to:
obtain, from a third-party source that maintains records for a financial account of a user, electronic purchase data that identifies a payment transaction made using the financial account of the user;
Lay is directed to a system for capturing and generating electronic receipt information from service providers. (Lay, para 0007, “[0007] The present disclosure is directed to a system and method for auto capturing and auto generating an electronic receipt from virtually any type of public facing business having a live point-of-purchase, provided that business uses and accepts electronic payment systems, namely, point-of-sale (POS) systems such as a credit card terminal and/or electronic cash register (ECR) which may further include a cash drawer, barcode scanner, receipt printer, customer facing payment terminal, touch screen, and other similar devices known in the art.”; para 0004, “[0004] Unfortunately, in point-of-purchase situations paper receipts are still used. More specifically, all types of merchants, banks, retailers, and service providers issue paper receipts for the various types of financial transactions, services and/or purchases which they might provide at specific point-of-purchase locations. For example, a restaurant will issue a paper receipt for a user regardless of whether the user pays with cash and/or credit. Similarly, department stores, food stores and various retail outlets will also issue a paper receipt at the time of purchase, regardless of the form or method of payment.”)
based on the electronic purchase data, generate an electronic receipt for the payment transaction,
Lay fig.7
the set of information including a verification identifier that is unique to the electronicrreceipt;
[0013] In specific implementations, the electronic receipts comprise one or more unique retailer-specific transaction numbers that are used by a retailer at the point-of-purchase to locate or identify purchase information associated with the one or more purchases made by the registered user at the point-of-purchase.
Lay does not explicitly disclose
provide an interface to enable a third-party submitter to submit verification codes; and in response to receiving a verification code, (i) determine that the a verification code that corresponds to the verification identifier; and (ii) provide content that includes the electronic receipt, including the supplemental information.
Mastie is directed to a paperless electronic receipt system. (Mastie, abstract) Mastie discloses that a transaction receipt may be uniquely identified, and the receipt information may be retrieved by scanning a bar code. (Mastie, para 0026, “[0026] Alternately, since not everyone is expected to have personal storage, in-store hard copy receipts may be generated and personal electronic receipts are indirectly passed to the customer 12. The merchant may have a shared kiosk located near an exit, for example, that is primarily for downloading personal electronic receipts in real-time to the customer's personal storage, including downloading images and detailed electronic receipt data. This kiosk may include a bar code reader, for example, that reads a unique barcode from printed receipts. Customers can present paper receipts and quickly receive a personal electronic receipt from the kiosk. This kiosk allows elimination of older point-of-sale terminal modifications/upgrades and may be compatible with all handheld devices.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine Lay with the verification of Mastie with the motivation of providing receipt information. Id.
Lay does not explicitly disclose
permanently store an original record of the payment transaction, the original record including (i) electronic purchase data, without alteration, (ii) identification of a time when the electronic purchase data was obtained, and (iii) the third-party source from where electronic purchase data was obtained;
…the electronic receipt including (i) a link to the original record of the payment transaction, and (ii) a set of information that is based on, but not the same as, the electronic purchase data,
Spero is directed to an electronic expense report system. (Spero, abstract). Spero discloses storage of original receipt images and derived electronic information. (Spero, fig.3; fig.5)
wherein generating the electronic receipt ncludes generating supplemental information, from the electronic purchase data, to identify one or more items of the payment transaction that qualify as a reimbursement or tax deduction, apart from one or more items of the payment transaction that do not qualify as the reimbursement or tax deduction;
Spero discloses that the system may analyze receipt information for potential reimbursement. (Spero, para 0037, “[0037] The next step is parsing 107-110, which involves analyzing the alpha-numerical text to find meaningful terms and values. The parsing identifies certain text as the date and amount of the receipt, it will also look for the vendor name. If the receipt has multiple charges on it, in the preferred embodiment, the parsing software will recognize the various amounts on the receipt and identify the charges associated with those amounts. Thus, for example, on a hotel bill, the parsing software may be able to identify separately the charges for room, charges for meals, telephone calls and movies. While not a required part of invention, this separating of receipts is beneficial in that many receipts carry charges that must be sub-categorized. For example, movie charges may not be reimbursable or, on a restaurant bill, alcohol charges may not be tax deductible.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine Lay and Mastie with the reimbursement of Spero with the motivation of generating expenses. Id.
Regarding Claim 2, Lay, Mastie and Spero disclose the system of claim 1.
Lay does not explicitly disclose
wherein the one or more processors execute the set of instructions to verify that the electronic receipt corresponds to the payment transaction identified by the electronic purchase data.
Spero discloses that the electronic receipt system serves as verification of electronic receipt data. (Spero, para 0062-63, “The receipt account on the Internet (ASP) provides the individual user with a number of benefits. It serves as a verification source that the receipt has not been manipulated or altered in any way. This is important to the IRS and Employers. Users may access their account through the Internet and view and create receipt expense reports, as opposed to just being able to view or create receipt expense reports with their software enabled computer processor. [0063] Organizations also benefit from the system. If an entire organization uses the receipt system, then the organization can integrate their expense reports into the accounts payable program of an accounting system. Approvals can be granted, checks cut and mailed, and notifications provided to the expense submitter.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine Lay and Mastie with the verification of Spero with the motivation of generating expenses. Id.
Regarding Claim 3, Lay, Mastie and Spero disclose the system of claim 1.
Lay does not explicitly disclose
wherein the verification identifier is generated after the electronic purchase data is obtained from the third-party source.
However, the limitation is obvious in view of Lay alone. The examiner notes that Lay discloses a verification identifier for identifying an electronic receipt, but is silent as to when it is generated. However, the examiner respectfully suggests that the identifying would necessarily be generated before, after or contemporaneously with the processing of transaction purchase data. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential options (generate an identifier after data is obtained) with a reasonable expectation of success. The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
Regarding Claim 4, Lay, Mastie and Spero disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the electronic purchase data is represented using at least one of: i) the Open Financial Exchange (OFX) format; ii) the Quicken Financial Exchange (QFX) format; or iii) the Comma Separation Value (CSV) format, or iv) hypertext markup language (HTML).
(Lay, para 0082, “[0082] As described above in the various embodiments, after a consumer/user creates an account in the system, the consumer/user can receive and access all of their electronic receipts at a single website. Each purchase from a retailer/merchant that has also opted into the service can generate a digital/electronic receipt that is electronically sent into the user's online account directly from the checkout stand, otherwise known as the Point-of-Purchase (POP), located within the store.”) The examiner interprets web site receipt content to read on HTML.
Regarding Claim 6, Lay, Mastie and Spero disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the computer system comprises a computing device that is connected to a card issuing financial institution over a communications network.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Lay.
Regarding Claim 7, Lay, Mastie and Spero disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the verification code includes a barcode or QR code.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Mastie.
Regarding Claim 8, Lay, Mastie and Spero disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the verification code is included with the electronic receipt.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Mastie
Regarding Claim 9, Lay, Mastie and Spero disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the electronic receipt is at least partially formatted in HyperText Markup Language (HTML) or in Portable Document Format (PDF).
(Lay, para 0082, “[0082] As described above in the various embodiments, after a consumer/user creates an account in the system, the consumer/user can receive and access all of their electronic receipts at a single website. Each purchase from a retailer/merchant that has also opted into the service can generate a digital/electronic receipt that is electronically sent into the user's online account directly from the checkout stand, otherwise known as the Point-of-Purchase (POP), located within the store.”) The examiner interprets web site receipt content to read on HTML.
Regarding Claim 10, Lay, Mastie and Spero disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the original record includes origination information corresponding to when the electronic purchase data was imported to create the original record.
Spero is directed to an electronic expense report system. (Spero, abstract). Spero discloses storage of original receipt images and derived electronic information. (Spero, fig.3; fig.5) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine Lay and Mastie with the origination of Spero with the motivation of generating expenses. Id.
Regarding Claims 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20
See prior art rejections of claims 1,2,3,4,7,8,10,1,7,8
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lay 20090271265 in view of Mastie 20070094088 in view of Spero 20040083134 in view of Farias 20080270514
Regarding Claim 5, Lay, Mastie and Spero disclose the system of claim 1.
Lay does not explicitly disclose
wherein the electronic purchase data is represented using the ISO 8583 Standard for Financial Transaction Card Originated Messages.
Farias is directed toa system for accessing POS terminals. (Farias, abstract). Farias discloses that it is known that transaction data may be formatted as ISO8583. (Farias, para 0036, “[0036] Further, electronic operations perform a simpler process that can be detailed with the following steps, as shown in FIG. 6:
1. POS user types the transaction data; 2. POS client system 15 connects to a Remote Access Server (RAS) 45 or attaches to a broadband network. 3. POS client system 15 receives network access. 4. POS client system builds an ISO8583 message. 5. POS client system sends the ISO8583 message to the transaction server 35. 6. Transaction server 35 responds to the POS client system with an ISO8583 message. 7. POS client system 15 process the received message. 8. POS client system 15 emits a transaction receipt.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine Lay, Mastie and Spero with the ISO8583 of Farias with the motivation of processing transaction messages. Id.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -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 Zeender can be reached at (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 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627