DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
0. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, Applicant's filed response has been entered.
This is a Non-final office action in response to communication received on 06/22/2026. The amended claims filed 06/22/2026 have been examined herein.
Double Patenting Rejection – Reason(s) for Withdrawal
1. Note the terminal disclaimer filed 06/27/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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. Next using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidances (hereinafter 2019 PEG) the rejection as follows has been applied.
Under step 1, analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, claims 1-18 are a method; claim 19 is an apparatus; and claim 20 is a non-transitory CRM. Thus, each claim 1-20, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Under Step 2A Prong One, per MPEP 2106.04, prong one asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
Next, per 2019 PEG, to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (I) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (II) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
(I) An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 1-19 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements, which are first considered under step 2A prong two when claim(s) is/are reconsidered as a whole and exclusively under step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of carrying out a product purchase transaction with valid promotional offers which is certain methods of organizing human activity.
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, per MPEP 2106.04, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’).
Next, per 2019 PEG, Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (I) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (II) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Accordingly, the examiner will evaluate whether the claims recite one or more additional element(s) that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception by considering them both individually and as a whole.
The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1-20 at least are a mobile device including a display, one or more processors, a communication unit, memory, and location detection device; transmitting from mobile device to server data; retail machine e.g. vending machine, and extracting a product identifier a code or image comprising a barcode, QR code, machine-readable product code, or captured product image (claim 1), user interfaces (claims 2-3), broadcast by retail machine (claim 12), an image of the purchased product captured with a camera of the mobile device (claim 16), scanner of the mobile device (claim 17), it recites substantially similar additional element and it’s an apparatus claim so the retail machine and server are not part of the apparatus under BRI (claim 19), and non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which, when executed by a mobile device with a display, a communications unit, and one or more processors, cause the mobile device to perform functions (claim 20). Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figs. 1-5 and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more devices merely sending/receiving data over a network, note 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). Captured data and determined location data is considered insignificant extra solution activity such as pre-solution activity e.g. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the one or more processors analyzes captured data, determined location data, and transmitted data to facilitate a product purchase transaction by ensuring promotional offer(s) applied during the transaction are valid to check whether post transaction the promotional benefit are to be provided by comparing submitted product identifier with promotional offer. Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) - certain result here is application of valid promotional offer to a product purchase transaction (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 patent). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to process a product purchase transaction are valid to check whether post transaction the promotional benefit are to be provided by comparing submitted product identifier with promotional offer, i.e. whether the purchased product conforms or is eligible to receive a benefit as described in the promotional offer rules or requirements (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of carrying out a product purchase transaction with valid promotional offers which is certain methods of organizing human activity (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 1-20, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of carrying out a product purchase transaction with valid promotional offers - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(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) [similarly here retail machine identifier, promotional offers, UPC of product purchased are transmitted];
(ii) (a) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014), (b) Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53, (c) Patent No.: US 2013/0191213 [0308] “user (101) uses the mobile device (e.g., 107, 411) configured with a barcode scanning application (e.g., configured to recognize a barcode from an image capture via a digital camera of the mobile device (411) or using other barcode scanning techniques) to capture (703) a barcode of a product for sale in the retail store”, [0542], [0562], [0606]; (d) Pub. No.: US 2011/0125561 [0028] " imaging facility 104 may be a handheld device, such as a mobile phone camera or web-enabled digital camera. The imaging facility 104 may be at least one of a webcam, flatbed scanner or a machine designed to capture and transmit images. The imaging facility 104 may be an in-store device that allows users to scan and transmit proof-of-purchase. The communication device 108 may be a kiosk, cell phone, smart phone, PDA, computer, tablet computer, and the like " [similarly here data that facilitate product purchase transaction is captured, parsed, and processed];
(iii) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)." [similarly here as a post solution promotions are communicated or displayed to user on an interface]; and
(iv) Regarding location of consumer mobile device, it is simply being gathered from what appears to be a generic built in component of consumer device, the Examiner provides evidence that it is indeed well-known or well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the industry see the following publications:
- (a) Pub. No.: US 2010/0273452 paras. [0073] note "The location determination routine 94 is operable to determine a geographic location of the target device 14 using GPS sensors or any other conventional means of determining geographic location."; and [0091] note "In one aspect, a recovery module 116 may further include a parental control module. In such an aspect, the parental control module may allow for disablement of the wireless device at specific locations (e.g. school, church, etc.). Further, the parental control module may provide for a web-based interface to control at least a portion of data/voice interactions with specific wireless devices. For example, specific web content may be restricted and/or specific numbers may be blocked. Still further, the parental control module may allow for detection of whether specific locations have been visited. For example, the module may determine if the device (and presumably the child) visited a library or a mall after school, or if the child left the service coverage area. In another aspect, the parental control module may be used to remotely disable at least a portion of the functionalities of an associated wireless device."
- (b) Pub. No.: US 2009/0288012 note [0148] note "If at any time during the initialization of any of these transaction configurations a step fails, for example one party uses the conveyed transaction identifier with the transaction authority, but the authority has no record of the transaction, or the transaction is not in the correct pending state, or there are some other conditions on the transaction which cannot be met such as the transaction violating the conditions of parental controls put in place by the guardian of a user who is a minor, then the violations are stored at the transaction authority 102 for security and debugging purposes and appropriate messages are sent to the parties."; and [0298] note "The user's location can be determined by the system using one or more well-understood methods such as GPS, triangulation, or by determining if they are near parts of the system such as short range transmitter access points which have had their locations determined, either by some automated means such as global positioning system (GPS) or by having had its location entered into the system manually."
- (c) Pub. No.: US 2012/0101881 paras. [0254] note "In some implementations, the app may include an indication of the location (e.g., name of the merchant store, geographical location, information about the aisle within the merchant store, etc.) of the user, e.g., loll. The app may provide an indication of a pay amount due for the purchase of the product, e.g., 1012. In some implementations, the app may provide various options for the user to pay the amount for purchasing the product( s ). For example, the app may utilize the GPS coordinates to determine the merchant store within the user is present, and direct the user to a website of the merchant."; [0258] note "In some implementations, the app may provide the L-PROMO with the GPS location of the user. Based on the GPS location of the user, the L-PROMO may determine the context of the user (e.g., whether the user is in a store, doctor's office, hospital, postal service office, etc.). Based on the context, the user app may present the appropriate fields to the user, from which the user may select fields and/or field values to send as part of the purchase order transmission."
- (d) Pub. No.: US 2011/0029370 paras. [0060] note "Various techniques may be employed to reduce the probability of fraud in the reporting of presence at a store. In some embodiments, an assertion of presence at a store may be validated against various criteria such as the last known location of the mobile phone and the time since the last known location and/or error radius of the mobile phone (which in some embodiments may be required to be instantaneous and/ or received within a short time threshold, such as ten seconds). If it is determined that it is unlikely that the mobile phone traveled from the last known location since the time of the last report, the assertion may be rejected. In some embodiments, multiple sequential locational reports and/or assertions of presence in stores, and the times thereof, may be analyzed to determine whether it is plausible that the reports are accurate, and the assertion may be rejected if it is determined not to be plausible, e.g. if it requires a rapidity of transit that is infeasible, for example a velocity in excess of 80 miles per hour for over short (e.g. less than two hour) periods of time."; also see [0021]; [0030]-[0034]; and [0037].
- (e) Roeding Pub. No.: US 2011/0029370 Al [0021] note "determine where the consumers are based upon the locations of their mobile phones 101. Many mobile phones 101 are equipped with global positioning system (GPS) units 212 that provide precise location information. The cell phones can transmit this information to the system and the server can determine how close a consumer is to a store 301. The system can also determine if the consumer is within the store 301. If GPS is not available, various other location detection mechanisms can be used to determine the location of the consumer and distance 309 from the store 301"; [0027]-[0032]; [0037].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Claims Allowable Over Prior Art
3. Upon conducting a prior art search the Examiner discovered the following which appear to be the closest prior art references:
*Being noted initially
- WO2006121541A note "Referring to Fig. 8b, either the primary RPD or attached component to it may incorporate a physical-PIIT receptacle (824). The receptacle may incorporate a scanner that scans the PUT, i.e. UPC or SPoP.sub.1 in one of, but not limited to, several ways such as scans the tag with a barcode reader and/or RDIF reader and/or scans the tags as an image and employ character recognition and/or barcode recognition software system to read tags. In the event required data cannot be retrieved using the forgoing methods the user may have the option to first submit the required data using a method such as discussed hereinabove in Fig. 3 (345 through 348) and then submit the physical tag. In cases where an image scan of the tag is made, the system may have the ability to transmit the image of the tag to the rebate service in real-time for purposes of customer support and problem resolution. The system displays to the user the reason of rejection of physical-product-identifier-code (825). The system displays and provides options to user as is applicable (826). The rebate is formally assigned to the rebate service (827). The rebate is posted to all applicable accounts and records (828). The rebate funding options are determined (829). The rebate funding is authorized (830). The user is prompted to select a choice from displayed applicable rebate funding options (831). The user selects the voucher or pre paid card that is to be submitted to the cashier at checkout (832). Upon presentation to the cashier and the ringing up of the items associated with the advance credit, the rebate service debits the member account for the appropriate amount and pays the merchant the credit available for the item or items associated with the voucher. The user is prompted to process next item (833). The user has no further items to process (834) and the system posts transaction to all appropriate accounts and records and generates voucher/prepaid card or similar. The user is prompted to begin processing of next item, if any (835). The user/member selects Credit Account (836). Upon successful completion of the rebate processing of item and the purchase of the item, the account of the member of the Service is credited with the amount of the rebate less any applicable fees. Dependent upon the credit worthiness of the member, the member either immediately has the cash available in their account or at some future point in time, effectively an advance registration and qualification, whereby they may withdrawal the funds from a cash dispensing RPD or use the funds as provided for under the services available to their account as are provided by the rebate service. The user is prompted to process next item, if any (837). The user has no further items to process (838) and the system posts the transaction to all appropriate accounts and records and generates a voucher/prepaid card or similar. The user is prompted to begin processing of next item (839). If applicable, the user/member selects tax-avoided rebate for this item (840). These types of rebates are available on products from participating rebate issuers, whereby the rebate issuer directly pays the seller of their product when a qualified customer purchases a qualified product. In effect, the rebate service pre qualifies the member and the product. When both the Certificate of Qualification of the Service, accompanied by the appropriate product(s) are presented at the cashier, the merchant receives an immediate credit for the rebate which is reflected on the receipt of their customer as a discount on the item. No sales or other taxes such as VAT is applicable to the discounted price. The user/member selects tax avoided rebate (841). The user has no further items to process (842). The system posts the transaction to all appropriate accounts and records and generates voucher/prepaid card or similar. The user is prompted to process next item, if any (843). Referring to Fig. 8c, the user is instructed to collect their voucher or pre paid card (844). The system may provide a summary of the rebates, fees charged, total amount available, and other pertinent information. It should be appreciated that the member may not be required to use vouchers or prepaid cards. The member may simply be required to present their membership number at time of purchase, post processing. The systems may be configured to recognize and associate the advance processing of the member and apply credit as is appropriate. The process of using a voucher or prepaid card simply addresses instances where a merchant may not have the ability to configure their POSS to interoperate with the systems of the service. The user collects the voucher/ pre paid card (854). Upon completion of their session at RPD, the user/member proceeds to checkout with all items (846). The user is prompted if they would like to make another transaction or perform another activity (847). The user indicates their desire to make another transaction or perform another activity (848). The user declines to make another transaction or perform another activity (849). The user is prompted to select next activity (850). The system generates transaction summary (851). The user views Transaction Summary and completes processes for rebates post processing of Fig. 7."
*Previously noted
- US2012/0029691 Mockus et al.
"[0027] Users can use any mobile device capable of sending SMS (text messages) or MMS (multimedia messages) to communicate with a machine via the centralized server to which the machine is connected. SMS messages can contain text of any identification sequence labeled on the machine. MMS messages can contain pictures taken of matrix codes or physical products in the machine. These messages are routed through the user's local carrier to a server that receives the message. The message is parsed to determine the sender's number and any additional information that was sent. If the user's mobile number is associated with a registered member account, additional benefits such as discounts, promotions and specials may be applied in addition to whatever other information that is being requested. Information that may be sent in a message includes machine identification number that is listed on the machine, product information number, picture of matrix code (two dimensional barcode), or promotional offer identification number or picture. The central server determines the codes sent by parsing them and pattern matching them to items and information stored in a data store such as database or file system. Codes are unique to a data item and follow a formatting scheme that allows them to be quickly parsed and processed."; [0051]; [0131] " Information that may be sent in a message includes machine identification number that is listed on the machine, product information number, picture of matrix code (two dimensional barcode), or promotional offer identification number or picture. The central server determines the codes sent by parsing them and pattern matching them to items and information stored in a data store"; [0132]-[0133]; [0134] note "the mobile website and mobile applications, merchandise data for a machine or retail display can be sent to that phone from the server or directly from the machine. This merchandise data, organized into a virtual planogram, can be used to virtually represent the physical display of the local machine. Users can then select the product, service or promotion that they are interested in by using the touch sensor capabilities of the mobile device and selecting the virtual image of the product"; [0137]; [0145] "Subroutine 1500 (Figure 15) illustrates the preferred method of retrieving products from a vending machine or automated retail store by entering in a code that is verified on a central server before dispensing the products. Purchases made through a mobile device are linked to a specific machine to which purchased merchandise can be received. This information is stored in a data store on the central server (Figure 13) and then the information is synchronized with the machines in the field. This places a temporary hold on the merchandise so it cannot be sold to another consumer. After the set time, the purchase code expires, the hold on the merchandise is lifted and the merchandise becomes available again. The user may apply for a credit or refund at this time."; [0146]-[0147].
- US20130191213 see [0144]; [0395]; [0402], also see [0401]; [0420]; [0421] "if the offer acceptance is determined to be valid, offer generation server may generate a message to report the validity of the offer acceptance, e.g., (1813). The valid acceptance message may comprise user ID, offer(s) ID(s), merchant originating the offer(s), a timestamp, options to publicize the offer(s), and more data, comprising information describing the outcome of acceptance validity check (1812). User device receives and displays valid acceptance message, e.g., (1814)."; [0429] "Merchant server might generate a checkout offer validation request, e.g., (2004). Offer validation request (2005) may comprise, for example, for each offer associated to checkout request (2003), offer ID, user ID, timestamp, merchant, merchant location, and may also comprise a list of the products or services to check out."; [0308]-[0311]; [0336].
- US2015/0019433A1 [0103]This type of case of use can be applied to many other situations such as payment in a car, payment for fuel at a gas pump, payment for sweets, drinks and sandwiches for example in an automatic food dispenser, data acquisition from an advertisement display, an advertisement screen in a local cinema (for example to pay for ice cream or sweets or, better still, to buy a physical item from a merchant situated next to the cinema, for example to buy a meal in the restaurant). These examples of use can correspond to situations in which the merchant is not physically present when making the transaction from the user's terminal.
[0104] In order to reinforce the security of such transactions, which may be done without a merchant's physical presence, subsequently to the obtaining of data identifying the merchant and identifying the price, the method comprises a step for sending scanned data obtained by means of the QR code, to the management server (or any other server for collecting products and services associated with merchants). These pieces of data sent by the management server can be complemented by data on location at the disposal of the terminal (for example by means of a GPS device) and by an identification of offers. The GPS data makes it possible to situate the location of the offer while the identification of the offer, which is also a piece of data of the QR code, makes it possible to know the number of the offer associated with this merchant.
[0105] In a complementary embodiment, this step coincides with the step (400) for transmitting the transaction (TF) to a transaction management server (Srv).
[0106] Upon reception of this data and prior to the implementing of the transaction, the management server verifies that the data transmitted to it effectively corresponds to a valid offer of payment for goods and/or services. In this embodiment, this requires that the merchants who wish to make offers of the type described here above should obligatorily, in order that the offers may be taken into account, declare them to a management server (or another server for collecting products and services associated with merchants) so that they are not considered to be lacking in validity. The validity of the offer can be tested through the locating (by GPS or mobile network) of the terminal. In this case, the data base also comprises an identification of the place of the offer. In order that it may be valid, the place recorded in a data base must appreciably correspond to the place in which the user's terminal is situated. The principle associated with the identification of the offer is the same. When this piece of data is taken into account, the data base comprises a price associated with the identified offer. In this case, the price obtained from the code QR is compared with the price recorded in the data base. This makes it possible to ensure that no fraud has taken place on the price.
[0107] In the event of validity of the offer, the transaction is continued as described here above. In the event of invalidity of the offer, the transaction is cancelled.
[0108] According to one particular characteristic, the invention also relates to a two-dimensional code called a QR code. According to the invention, a QR code of this kind is differentiated from the prior art QR codes by the fact that it comprises on the one hand a merchant's identifier and on the other hand an identifier pertaining to a transaction price. According to one particular characteristic depending on the embodiments, such a code also comprises a product and/or service identifier. Such a code can also comprise a locating of a sale of products or services. In an alternative version, such a code can also include an address to which the customer can get connected in order to obtain said data.
US Patent No. 6,332,127
"the mobile Web client transmits the user's validation request, preferably as an HTTP request, with the retrieved user location information to a Web server (Block 204). The Web server determines the validity of the offer based upon the received user location and/or information about the time of day that the request is received, in conjunction with validity location/time information encoded either in the requested URL or through a table lookup based on an index encoded in the requested URL (Block 206). The Web server then communicates whether or not the offer is still valid to the user (Block 208).
As an example of this aspect of the present invention, an advertising object for a particular commercial enterprise displayed within a Web page may contain an offer that reads: “If you buy product “X” within the next ten minutes, there will be a 10% discount.” When the Web server receives the user's validation request, time of day information encoded within the validation anchor can be decoded to determine whether the user has made the request within the ten minute window.
If user location information is transmitted with the user's validation request, the Web server can determine if the user is in the vicinity of a store of the commercial enterprise. If the user is in the vicinity of a store, an offer of an additional 10% discount may be made to the user under the condition that the user visit and purchase product “X” from the store."
However, the above noted references neither anticipate nor make prima facie obvious validation of purchased product in the manner being claimed. Therefore the claims are allowable over prior art.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
4. Clarity of record: For the clarity of record support can be found at least per as-filed spec paras. [0008]; [0041]-[0042]; [0114]-[0115], but the applicant notes support at least in part can be found in as-filed spec para. [0172], however the last paragraph is para. [0143] and para. [0172] does not exist per the as-filed specification.
Regarding 101, the Examiner respectfully finds the Applicant’s arguments in view of filed claim amendments unpersuasive. The rejection has been updated in view of filed claim amendments. The Applicant argues, note “Claims 1, 19, and 20, as amended, are patent eligible because they integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The present amendments clarify that the claimed promotion validation process is tied to a specific product-verification mechanism rather than merely applying promotional offers during a transaction. In particular, the claims now require the server to validate that the purchased product provided by the retail machine corresponds to a product required by the selected promotional offer by comparing product-identifying information derived from the code or image with product-identifying information associated with the selected promotional offer.
The claims further require that promotion validation information be withheld unless the server successfully performs this validation. As a result, the claimed system does not merely collect product information and display a result. Instead, product-identifying information derived from the code or image is used as a machine-readable verification input that controls operation of the system Specifically, the product-identifying information is used to determine whether promotion validation information will be generated and returned to the mobile device.
Accordingly, the amended claims recite a specific technological process in which machine-readable information associated with an actual purchased product is compared against information associated with a selected promotional offer to determine whether promotion validation should occur. The comparison is not performed merely for reporting purposes. Rather, the comparison directly controls whether promotion validation information is returned by the server. The claimed product-identifying information therefore affects subsequent system operation and is used as part of a product-verification process, rather than being merely collected or analyzed.
The amendments thus provide a specific mechanism for verifying that a purchased product satisfies the requirements of a selected promotional offer before validation information is returned. This constitutes a practical application of any alleged promotional offer concept because the claims are directed to a particular implementation that uses machine-readable product information, server-side comparison operations, and conditional return of validation information to perform product-level verification in connection with a retail-machine transaction.”
However, as explained in the updated rejection in view of the filed claim amendments “claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1-20 at least are a mobile device including a display, one or more processors, a communication unit, memory, and location detection device; transmitting from mobile device to server data; retail machine e.g. vending machine, and extracting a product identifier a code or image comprising a barcode, QR code, machine-readable product code, or captured product image (claim 1), user interfaces (claims 2-3), broadcast by retail machine (claim 12), an image of the purchased product captured with a camera of the mobile device (claim 16), scanner of the mobile device (claim 17), it recites substantially similar additional element and it’s an apparatus claim so the retail machine and server are not part of the apparatus under BRI (claim 19), and non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which, when executed by a mobile device with a display, a communications unit, and one or more processors, cause the mobile device to perform functions (claim 20). Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figs. 1-5 and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more devices merely sending/receiving data over a network, note 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). Captured data and determined location data is considered insignificant extra solution activity such as pre-solution activity e.g. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the one or more processors analyzes captured data, determined location data, and transmitted data to facilitate a product purchase transaction by ensuring promotional offer(s) applied during the transaction are valid to check whether post transaction the promotional benefit are to be provided by comparing submitted product identifier with promotional offer. Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) - certain result here is application of valid promotional offer to a product purchase transaction (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 patent). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to process a product purchase transaction are valid to check whether post transaction the promotional benefit are to be provided by comparing submitted product identifier with promotional offer, i.e. whether the purchased product conforms or is eligible to receive a benefit as described in the promotional offer rules or requirements (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of carrying out a product purchase transaction with valid promotional offers which is certain methods of organizing human activity (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.” Accordingly, merely carrying out insignificant extract solution activity such as extracting a product identifier which is evaluated to ensure that the purchased product is eligible or meets the requirement of the promotional offer fails to integrate the abstract idea into practical application because this process is indeed about capturing data which is considered insignificant extra solution activity e.g. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the one or more processors analyzes captured data by ensuring promotional offer(s) applied during the transaction are valid to check whether post transaction the promotional benefit are to be provided by comparing submitted product identifier with promotional offer. Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) - certain result here is application and verification of validity promotional offer in a product purchase transaction (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 patent). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to process a product purchase transaction are valid to check whether post transaction the promotional benefit are to be provided by comparing submitted product identifier with promotional offer, i.e. whether the purchased product conforms or is eligible to receive a benefit as described in the promotional offer rules or requirements (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As such, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion.
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully maintain the rejection.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and all the references on PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited should be duly noted by the Applicant as they can be subsequently used during prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIPEN M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 08:30-17:00 EST.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571)270-3948. 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.
/DIPEN M PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights