DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 10/8/2025.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 16 and 20, amendments to claims 1, 8 and 15, and addition of claims 21-23 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-19 and 21-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 10/8/2025 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full.
Amending the independent claims to include the combination of a loyalty discount with on-sale items is seen in the art. Adding details concerning scanning shopper’s loyalty cards, calculating sales totals, and formatting receipts are seen as predictable improvements using known techniques to improve similar devices/methods in the same way.
Regarding pages 9-10 of remarks, determining loyalty discounts for customers, searching a list of item discounts, aggregating discounts, and applying discounts to a payment is seen as sales activities, as well as a mental process. Generating a receipt image highlighting the discount total is also a mental process. Controlling a printer to print the receipt is seen as generally linking the idea to a field of use and using computing technology in its ordinary capacity. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) says a mental process can be performed by a mind or a human using a pen and paper. Generating an image of second text being highlighted relative to a first text can be accomplished by such means. Therefore, said claimed printer is seen as applying technology in its ordinary capacity to perform said abstract idea(s). Further, the combination of code reader, printer, processor and memory do not provide any meaningful limitations to the idea(s)/claims.
Regarding page 10 of remarks, the claimed calculations/analysis are not including any meaningful limitations/specific technological solutions in the implementation of the process on the POS.
Regarding pages 11-13, newly cited Kahn and Lim are relied upon to teach the added concepts. Then said remarks are moot.
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, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: registering commodities for purchase at a store, store a commodity master with entry for each commodity with a full price and discount amount, read a code and then identify a customer using the code, determine a rate of loyalty discount applicable, upon reading a commodity code search the master, register a commodity corresponding to code in a transaction, determine whether the registered commodity is discounted, upon determining, add the discount, upon input operation to settle, calculate total amount of payment based on full price and discount amount of registered commodity, upon identifying customer, apply loyalty discount and sum total discounts, generate transaction information indicating a receipt image including total payment due and discount, said discount highlighted relative to total due, and output transaction information for printing (printing is intended use of output). These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically fundamental economic behavior, including commercial interactions and sales activities, as well as mental processes (receipt imagery).
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: a printer, an input device, a code reader, a POS, a memory, control the printer to print the receipt using the generated information, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute registering commodities, and a processor, individually and in combination, merely use a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 recite generating transaction information such that the image includes a header to be printed adjacent to the discount information. Claims 4, 11 and 18 recite symbols surrounding the discount. Claims 5, 12 and 19 recite the discount in bold font. These include said mental process(es).
Claims 7 and 14 recite generate receipt information using a processor, said information electronic. This is seen as using a computer to apply said abstract idea(s), and generally linking said idea(s) to a technological area by way of electronic information. Further, said communication interface control for transmission of information to an external device is seen as sending and/or receiving data, which is seen by the MPEP as well-known, understand and conventional uses of electronic technology.
Claims 21-23 recite the second text is printed in a block between a receipt header and list of items. “Distinct” is interpreted as a separate section. See Figure 8 of present application. Using a printer to accomplish what a human mind can do (generating an image) with pen and paper is seen as applying technology to perform the idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2.)
For these reasons the claims are not subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn (US 2018/0260833) in view of Matkovic (US 2011/0184822).
Claims 1, 8 and 15. Kahn teaches a point of sale (POS) terminal for registering commodities for purchase at a store, comprising:
a code reader; (para. 95 mobile QR reader)
a printer; (para. 47 showing receipt printer and data output of receipt to printer)
an input device; (para. 123 showing touchscreen triggers by user pressing a number on display)
a memory that stores a commodity master with an entry for each commodity sold at a store in association with at least a commodity code and a full price for the commodity and optionally a discount amount for the commodity, (Kahn paragraphs 84 and 86 showing database with discounts based on SKU/items)
a processor configured to:
upon reading of a customer code via the code reader at a beginning of a transaction, identify a customer using the customer code, and determine a rate of loyalty discount applicable to the customer; (para. 52 showing loyalty level determination of customer and discount determination)
determine whether the registered commodity is associated with a discount amount, and (para. 106 showing discount applied at checkout based on a determination of loyalty)
upon determining that the registered commodity is associated with a discount amount, add the discount amount to a total amount of discount in the transaction, (para. 108 showing total discounts summed)
upon input of an operation to settle the transaction via the input device, calculate a total amount of payment due in the transaction based on the full price and the discount amount of each registered commodity, (para. 123 showing input to determine transaction price after discount)
upon identifying the customer by the customer code, apply an additional discount to the total amount of payment based on the rate of loyalty discount applicable to the identified customer, and add an amount of the additional discount to the total amount of discount in the transaction. (para. 108 showing multiple discounts including a loyalty discount applied)
Kahn does not, but Matkovic teaches:
upon reading of a commodity code via the code reader in the transaction,
search the commodity master for a commodity corresponding to the commodity code, (para. 110 showing UPC code price lookup and transaction processing)
register the commodity in the transaction, (para. 110 showing UPC code price lookup and transaction processing)
generate transaction information including an image of a receipt of the transaction, (para. 108 showing generation of receipt image) the image including first text indicating the total amount of payment due in the transaction and second text indicating the total amount of discount in the transaction, (para. 57 showing receipt including total amount and discount) the second text being highlighted relative to the first text, (Figure 8B showing relative highlighting of discount amount by way of a dedicated Savings column on image receipt) and
control the printer to print the receipt using the generated transaction information. (para. 47 showing receipt printer and data output of receipt to printer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction processing in Kahn, with the known technique of receipt generation in Matkovic, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for evidence of a transaction. (Matkovic para. 9)
Claim 15 additionally: a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a method for registering commodities for purchase at a store. (Matkovic para. 19 showing non-transitory media)
Claims 3, 10 and 17. Said modified Kahn teaches the POS terminal according to claim 1. Kahn does not, but Matkovic teaches wherein
the processor is configured to generate the transaction information such that the image includes a header to be printed adjacent to the second text. (Figure 8B showing receipt image with headers adjacent to second text, which indicates discount amount)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction processing in Kahn, with the known technique of receipt formatting in Matkovic, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for understanding the receipt text. (Matkovic para. 57)
Claims 7 and 14. Said modified Kahn teaches the POS terminal according to claim 1. Kahn does not, but Matkovic teaches further comprising:
a communication interface, wherein (para. 36 showing communication port/printer port)
the processor is configured to:
generate electronic receipt information corresponding to the receipt, and control the communication interface to transmit the electronic receipt information to an external device. (para. 36 showing output of receipt data to printer or network)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction processing in Kahn, with the known technique of receipt generation in Matkovic, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for evidence of a transaction. (Matkovic para. 9)
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn in view of Matkovic, and further in view of Johnson (US 2006/0010137).
Claims 4, 11 and 18. Said modified Kahn teaches the POS terminal according to claim 1. Said modified Kahn does not teach, but Johnson teaches wherein
the processor generates the transaction information such that the image includes symbols surrounding the second text. (para. 117 and 118 of Johnson showing printing transaction information, including discounts, including symbols such as underlines.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction processing in said modified Matkovic, with the known technique of receipt formatting in Johnson, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for common font changes. (para. 118 of Johnson)
Claims 5, 12 and 19. Said modified Kahn teaches the POS terminal according to claim 1. Said modified Kahn does not teach, but Johnson teaches wherein
the processor generates the transaction information such that the second text is printed in bold font. (para. 117 and 118 of Johnson showing printing transaction information, including discounts, including bolded fonts.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction processing in said modified Kahn, with the known technique of receipt formatting in Johnson, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for common font changes. (para. 118 of Johnson)
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn in view of Matkovic, and further in view of Lim (US 2025/0078047).
Claims 21-23. Said modified Kahn teaches the POS terminal according to claim 1. It does not, but Lim teaches wherein the second text is printed in a distinct block between a receipt header and a list of the registered commodities. (Lim Figure 7 showing total savings in block between header and list of items)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of transaction processing in said modified Kahn, with the known technique of receipt formatting in Lim, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for priority information presentation.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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 at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON N TUTOR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627