DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Jul. 31, 2025, and is made Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing (preferred) using a USPTO-supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is highly encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Examiner is available for interviews, generally: M–F, 10 a.m.–4:00 p.m., EST. For any AIR, Applicant should expect an email response within 24-hours with an electronic interview appointment for one of their chosen date(s)/time(s) and web-based collaboration tool instructions. If there is a conflict, Examiner will reach out by email.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1–5, 8–10, 12–15, 17 and 18 are now pending and examined with Claims 1, 8, and 15 in independent form.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are presently amended.
Claims 6, 7, 11, 16, 19, and 20 are [recently cancelled.
No Claims are added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Apr. 23, 2024, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Argument
Applicant argues the amended claims are “integrated into a practical application.” Applicant’s Reply at 7. “When a return of an item purchased with a coupon is initiated, the stored purchase information can be utilized to determine whether an item was purchased using a coupon. The coupon amount can then be returned to the manufacturer, with the customer receiving a refund of the actual amount paid, helping to prevent "windfalls" to the customer. Further, the transaction management system allows manufacturer coupons to be prorated over multiple items. For example, where a manufacturer coupon provides a dollar tender toward purchase on the purchase of ten items, the system may prorate the coupon such that a ten-cent tender is applied to each item. Upon return of one item, ten cents is returned to the manufacturer and the customer is refunded for the prorated purchase price. This helps to prevent fraud, as well as reduce losses by retailers in the purchase and return of products associated with a manufacturer coupon, while still allowing customers to enjoy the benefit of the price reductions offered by manufactures. Conventional software systems and databases for retailers and manufactures do not allow the tracking and application of applied manufacturer (e.g., third party) coupons at both check out and a return stage, while also enabling a real time price reduction and tender to be provided to the customer at checkout. … Such interfacing directly with the manufacturer system allows for both real-time tenders (e.g., resulting in effective price reductions) to be provided to the customer while preventing coupon fraud. The transaction management system 102 described provides for improved retail returns for items purchased with manufacturer coupons,” quoting Spec. ¶¶ 32, 36, 75. Id. at 8. “The claims provide an improvement to computer technology, such as enabling the transaction management system to interface with multiple systems (e.g., point of sale and manufacturer systems), provide real-time processing of returns, real-time returns to clients, real-time reimbursements from manufacturers, and real-time returns to manufacturers.” Id. at 9.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
“[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept.” BSG, Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the improvements relied on by Applicant such as “helping to prevent ‘windfalls’ to the customer” by properly accounting for “coupons,” “allow[ing] manufacturer coupons to be prorated over multiple items … to prevent fraud, as well as reduce losses by retailers in the purchase and return of products associated with a manufacturer coupon,” and enabling the transaction management system to interface with multiple systems” are merely the automation of the prior art manual processes with a generic computer. Applicant points to the database as being improved but upon a review of Applicant’s Specification, the allegedly improved database is generic. Spec. ¶¶ 34, 48, 59. Likewise, “enabling the transaction management system to interface with multiple systems (e.g., point of sale and manufacturer systems),” as described by Applicant’s Specification is done so by known, generic communication interface computer technology. Spec. ¶¶ 9, 59, 60 (API – not claimed), 66; See Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[S]ending information over [a] network is not even arguably inventive.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Reliance on the “real-time” characterization of processing returns, returns to clients, reimbursements from manufacturers, and returns to manufacturers does not alter the § 101 analysis. To illustrate this point, for example, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country” was famously quoted by President Kennedy during his inauguration on January 20, 1961, but is being read by Applicant here, in “real-time.” The computer is used as a tool to automate a previous manual process. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues at Step 2B that the “additional elements” of exemplary claim 1 render the claim patent eligible because they recite “technical features to overcome problems that arise in the realm of transaction management systems. In non-limiting nonexclusive examples, the claims overcome problems in transaction management systems, including fraud by customers. Thus, the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem, and the claims reflect the technical solution and the improvement.” Applicant’s Reply at 9.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
“[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept.” BSG, Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The “relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine.” Id (emphasis added). Rather, to properly evaluate the claims under Step Two of the Alice-Mayo standard, the abstract idea must be identified, set aside, and then “we ask . . . what else is there in the claims before us?” See id (quoting Mayo) (emphasis added). If that “what else” is the “application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” Id. at 1290–91.
Here, the features relied on by Applicant as “Additional elements” are part of the abstract idea and cannot as a matter of law, supply the inventive concept. An inventive concept cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
35 U.S.C. § 103 Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1–5, 8–10, 12–15, 17 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1–5, 8–10, 12–15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 1–5, 8–10, 12–15, 17, and 18 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1–5 recite a “method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “process.” Claims 8–10 and 12–14 recite a “system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.” Claims 15, 17, and 18 recite a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of an "article of manufacture.”
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative [“Rep. Claim 1”] of the subject matter under examination and recites, in part, emphasis added by Examiner to identify limitations with normal font indicating the abstract idea exception, bold limitations indicating additional elements. Each limitation is identified by a letter for later use as a shorthand notation in referencing/describing each limitation. Portions of the claim use italics to identify intended use limitations1 and underline, as needed, in further describing the abstract idea exception:
[A] A computer implemented method for retail sales comprising:
[B] analyzing coupon information associated with one or more items in a sales transaction to confirm the coupon is usable in the sales transaction;
[C] applying a portion of the coupon to the one or more items;
[D] receiving data associated with the sales transaction and the coupon, the data comprising a customer identifier, a price and an item identifier for each of one or more items purchased, a transaction identifier, an indication of use of the coupon and coupon information associated with the coupon;
[E] storing the data as an entry in a database, the entry linking the transaction identifier to the customer identifier and to each item identifier;
[F] responsively transmitting, to a manufacturer system, a request for reimbursement for the portion of the coupon applied to the one or more items;
[G] receiving the transaction identifier;
[H] responsively transmitting, to a computing device, a user interface to display the one or more items associated with the transaction identifier;
[I] receiving, from the computing device, a selection of at least one item to be returned, the selection comprising a return request that includes the item identifier for the at least one item and the customer identifier;
[J] retrieving, from the database, the item entry based on the item identifier associated with the at least one item and the customer identifier in the return request;
[K] based on the item entry, including the indication of the use of the coupon and the coupon information, determining a first refund for the at least one item including the portion of the coupon applied to the one or more items; and
[L] responsive to determining the first refund, transmitting, to the manufacturer system, a second refund for the portion of the coupon applied to the one or more items.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 1 recites “[a] … method for retail sales” in the preamble, Limitation A, and “determining a first refund for the at least one item including the portion of the coupon applied to the one or more items” in Limitation K, which recites commercial or legal interactions under the organizing human activity exception because “[a] … method for retail sales” and “determining a first refund” recites “sales activities or behaviors, and business relations” between two people. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Alternatively, Limitations A and K recite a fundamental economic practice under the organizing human activity exception because “[a] … method for retail sales” and “determining a first refund” is a longstanding commercial practice or fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce. Retail sales process and determining refunds being old and well known “indicates that the practice is fundamental.” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The category of abstract ideas embraces ‘fundamental economic practice[s] long prevalent in our system of commerce,’ … including ‘longstanding commercial practice[s]’")
Limitations B–J, L are the required steps and data communication inputs and outputs required for the “method for retail sales” and “determining a first refund” and therefore, recites the same exception. Id.
Alternatively2, Limitations B–L, as drafted, recite the abstract idea exception of mental processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of the generic computer components indicated in bold. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
. . .
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). For example, but for the generic computer components claim language, here, Limitations B–L, recite collecting information (Limitations D, E, F, G, I, J, L), analyzing it (Limitations B, C, K) and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Limitation H), where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. For example, Limitations B and C are mental processes that are practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to “analyz[e] coupon information … to confirm the coupon is usable in the sales transaction” (Limitation B) and “apply[ ] a portion of the coupon to the one or more items” (Limitation C) in any possible way. Limitations B and C cover any solution to “analyzing coupon information … to confirm the coupon is usable in the sales transaction” (Limitation B) and “applying a portion of the coupon to the one or more items” (Limitation C) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which is so broad as to encompass mental processes. Likewise, Limitation K is a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to “determin[e] a first refund” using the “item entry,” “indication of the use of a coupon,” and “coupon information” in the manner claimed. Limitation K covers any solution to “determin[e] a first refund” using the “item entry,” “indication of the use of a coupon,” and “coupon information” in the manner claimed with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which is so broad as to encompass mental processes.
If a claim limitation under BRI, 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 idea exception. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the pending claims recite the combination of these abstract idea exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Rep. Claim 1 does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. The additional elements are: a computer (to implement the method), a [sales transaction] database, a manufacturer system, a computing device, a user interface, a point of sale system (Claim 8), return validation system (Claim 8), return system (Claim 8), settlement system (Claim 8)3, 4
Regarding the a computer (to implement the method), a [sales transaction] database, a manufacturer system, a computing device, a user interface, a point of sale system (Claim 8), return validation system (Claim 8), return system (Claim 8), settlement system (Claim 8), Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them or describes them using exemplary language as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., Spec. ¶ 44 (“The back end interface [116] may be a tenant of the transaction management system 102”); ¶ 44 (“Generally, the point of sale system 108 is a computing device including memory storing instructions which, when executed by processors of the point of sale system 108, cause the point of sale system 108 to initiate a sales transaction.”); ¶ 39 (“the point of sale system 108, the return system 112, and/or other user devices in communication with the transaction management system 102 may be implemented using any number of computing devices”); ¶ 42 (“the transaction management system 102 may be in communication with any number of point of sale systems 108, return systems 112, and/or other hardware utilized by a retailer”);¶ 43 (“the transaction management system 102 may include or utilize one or more hosts or combinations of compute resources … Generally, the transaction management system 102 may be implemented by compute resources at one or more servers, computing devices, and/or across a serverless architecture. The transaction management system 102 may generally be implemented by compute resources including hardware for memory and one or more processors.”); ¶ 53 (“This disclosure contemplates any suitable number of computing systems 200”); ¶ 54 (“Computing system 200 includes a bus 210 (e.g., an address bus and a data bus) or other communication mechanism for communicating information, which interconnects subsystems and devices, such as processor 208, memory 202 (e.g., RAM), static storage 204 (e.g., ROM), dynamic storage 206 (e.g., magnetic or optical), communications interface 216 (e.g., modem, Ethernet card, a network interface controller (NIC) or network adapter for communicating with an Ethernet or other wire-based network, a wireless NIC (WNIC) or wireless adapter for communicating with a wireless network, such as a WI-FI network), input/output (1/0) interface 220 (e.g., keyboard, keypad, mouse, microphone). In particular embodiments, the computing system 200 may include one or more of any such components.”); ¶ 57 (“particular embodiments are not limited to any specific combination of hardware circuitry and/or software … the term "logic" means any combination of software or hardware that is used to implement all or part of particular embodiments disclosed herein”); ¶ 58 (“The term "computer readable medium" or "computer usable medium" as used herein refers to any medium that participates in providing instructions to processor 208 for execution.”); ¶ 76 (“it should be understood that logical operations may be performed in any order, unless explicitly claimed otherwise or a specific order is inherently necessitated by the claim language.”); ¶ 56 (“communications interface 216 includes hardware, software, or both providing one or more interfaces for communication (such as, for example, packet-based communication) between computing system 200 and one or more other computer systems or one or more networks”); ¶¶ 34, 59 (any known and generic database); ¶ 12 (“the transaction management system further includes a settlement system in communication with a manufacturer system, where the settlement system is configured to refund a value of the coupon to the manufacturer system responsive to determining the refund.”). The generic interface, here, appears to perform calculations (functions) that are programmed by software. Spec. ¶¶ 56, 59. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow.
The displaying steps, Limitation H, fails to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements, a practical application, or inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(h) (citing Electric Power Group). Further, requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer also does not provide a practical application or inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Limitation A describes the “computer” is used in some way to perform the steps of the claimed invention. This takes generic hardware and describes the functions of receiving, storing, and sending data, which merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Limitations B–L describes the “computer” performing the steps of the claimed invention, which represents the abstract idea exception itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception itself simply adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2), or generically recites an effect of the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Rep. Claim 1 is not substantially different than Independent Claims 8 and 15 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claims 8 and 15 contain no additional elements not otherwise analyzed. Therefore, Independent Claims 8 and 15 are also directed to the same abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 1 fails Step 2B because the claim as whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
The pending claims in their combination of additional elements is not inventive. First, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Second, each additional element represents a currently available generic computer technology, used in the way in which it is commonly used (individually generic). Last, Applicant’s Specification discloses that the combination of additional elements is not inventive. Spec., ¶ 76 (steps/functions may be performed in any order); ¶¶ 12, 34, 39, 42, 43, 44, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 76 (known and generic (exemplary) computer equipment as explained and cited supra.)
Thus, Examiner finds the additional elements of Rep. Claim 1 are elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activity in the particular field of this invention based on Applicant’s own disclosure5. Spec. ¶¶ 12, 34, 39, 42, 43, 44, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 76; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Specifically, Applicant’s Specification discloses the recited additional elements (i.e., a computer (to implement the method), a [sales transaction] database, a manufacturer system, a computing device, a user interface, a point of sale system (Claim 8), return validation system (Claim 8), return system (Claim 8), settlement system (Claim 8)) are generic computer components. The Examiner also finds the functions of receiving, storing, transmitting, displaying, and processing (e.g., performing mathematical operations on) data, described in Limitations A–L are all normal functions of a generic computer.
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements in combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea at a high level of generality. Thus, Rep. Claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept.
Rep. Claim 1 is not substantially different than Independent Claims 8 and 15 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claims 8 and 15 contain no additional elements not otherwise analyzed. Therefore, Independent Claims 8 and 15 are also directed to the same abstract idea.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims are dependent on Independent Claims and include all the limitations of the Independent Claims. Therefore, all dependent claims recite the same Abstract Idea. Dependent claims do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application or recite an inventive concept because the additional elements: (1) are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; and/or (2) further limit the abstract idea exception of the Independent Claims. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 18 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims and contain no additional elements not otherwise analyzed. For the same reasoning as explained in Step 2A, Prong One, Dependent Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19 recite mental processes that are practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to perform each of the steps. The mathematical concepts exception is also present. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claim 9 recites “wherein” clauses that further limits the abstract idea of the Independent Claims but contains the additional elements of: a sales validation system (Claim 9). For the same reasoning as explained for the various “systems” in Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B, supra, these additional elements do not provide a practical application or inventive concept because it is amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception with a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f). An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Conclusion
Claims 1–5, 8–10, 12–15, 17 and 18 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 1 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatch et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0278902) [“Hatch”], in view of FOR: WO 2013/134425 A1 [“FOR VISA”] in view of James et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0043614) [“James”], and further in view of Flores et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0138762) [“Flores”]
Regarding Claim 1, Hatch disclose:
A computer implemented method for retail sales comprising:
(See at least Fig. 4 and associated text ¶ 42, “FIG. 4 illustrates an example of a method 400 that may be used to provide credits to users based on price difference between a price paid and third party prices.” The method of Fig. 4 is implemented using a computer. Fig. 2 and associated text ¶ 9 (“FIG. 2 is schematic block diagram of a computer system suitable for implementing methods in accordance with embodiments of the invention”).
analyzing coupon [price match] information associated with one or more items [item identifier] in a sales transaction to confirm the coupon [price match] is usable [available and applied] in the sales transaction;
(See at least Fig. 4, steps 406, 408, 410, 420, which describe Step 404—“identifying 404 from the received transaction record the item identifiers of items purchased as part of the transaction and the price for each item”; ¶ 45; Step 406—“Identifying the lowest price among the third party pricing data for each item identifier of at least a portion of the item identifiers in a transaction may include determining a per-unit cost for corresponding items in the third party pricing data”; ¶ 47; Step 408— “for each item identifier of some or all of the item identifiers of the transaction record determining 408 a price difference between the lowest price found for the each item identifier in the third party pricing data”; ¶ 48. Collectively, these steps are “analyzing coupon information [price match] associated with one or more items in a sales transaction,” as claimed. See also, ¶ 42 (“Any discounts due to coupons or price matching may also be noted for each item identifier for which such price adjustments were applied.” See also, ¶ 15.)
applying a portion of the coupon to the one or more items;
(See at least Fig. 4, step 420, “assign credit” and associated text ¶ 51. “The server system may then credit an account associated with the user identifier with an amount corresponding to the one or more price difference[s]” associated with each item identifier. ¶ 15.)
receiving data associated with the sales transaction [transaction records 112c] and the coupon,
(See at least ¶ 28, “[T]he purchase history 112a may include, or be embodied as, transactions records 112c each recording specific aspects of a transaction.” A transaction record is a receipt. ¶ 39. “The transaction record may further include … Any discounts due to coupons or price matching may also be noted for each item identifier for which such price adjustments were applied.” ¶ 42.)
the data comprising a customer identifier [user record 110], a price and an item identifier for each of one or more items purchased [<product,price> entries], a transaction identifier, an indication of use of the coupon and coupon information associated with the coupon;
(See at least Fig. 1, purchase history 112a, transaction records 112c, and associated text ¶ 27, “The user record 110 may include such data as a purchase history 112a including a record of previous transactions conducted by the user associated with the user record 110 at the various POSs 106 associated with the server system 102a. The user record may further include a record of credits 112b assigned to the user associated with the user record as well as a redemption or usage of such credits.” See also, ¶ 26 (“unique customer identifier”) “The transaction record may further include various <product,price> entries that list a product identifier and a price paid for the product corresponding to that product identifier. Other data may include taxes paid for the entire transaction and/or for specific item identifiers. Any discounts due to coupons or price matching may also be noted for each item identifier for which such price adjustments were applied.” ¶ 42. “The return request may include a transaction identifier and identify one or more items from a transaction that customer is returning.” ¶ 56.)
storing the data as an entry in a database, the entry linking the transaction identifier to the customer identifier and to each item identifier;
(See at least ¶ 56, “The transaction identifier may correspond to a specific transaction record 112c.” “5. The system of claim 1, wherein the executable and operational data are further effective to receive a record of the first transaction concluded on a point of sale (POS) by: receiving, from a user computer, a transaction identifier; and retrieving the record of the first transaction using the transaction identifier.” Claim 5; see also Claim 12. The transaction identifier is linked to the customer identifier and to each item identifier through the stored transaction records 112c as explained above in the cited portions. Fig. 1. Transaction records 112c are stored in a database. Fig. 1.)
[See FOR VISA]
receiving the transaction identifier;
(See at least ¶ 43, “The step of receiving 402 the receipt may include receiving a transaction identifier from a user computing device 108 through a portal such as a website hosted by the server system 102.” See also, ¶ 56)
responsively transmitting, to a computing device, a user interface to display the one or more items associated with the transaction identifier;
(See at least ¶ 43, “Receiving 402 the receipt may include receiving, by the server system 102a, a selection of the transaction in a listing of transactions presented in a portal provided by the server system 102a or by an application for viewing receipts stored locally on a user computing device 108.” See also, ¶ 52. The receipt, when presented in a portal for selection, Includes “each purchased item [ ] represented by an item identifier.” ¶ 13. See also, Flores, Figs. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22.)
receiving, from the computing device, a selection of at least one item to be returned, the selection comprising a return request that includes the item identifier for the at least one item and the customer identifier;
(See at least ¶ 43, “Receiving 402 the receipt may include receiving, by the server system 102a, a selection of the transaction in a listing of transactions presented in a portal provided by the server system 102a or by an application for viewing receipts stored locally on a user computing device 108.” See also, ¶ 52. The “transaction record, e.g., receipt,” when presented in a portal for selection, includes “each purchased item [ ] represented by an item identifier.” ¶ 13. The “user identifier” is “included in the transaction record.” ¶ 49. “[R]eceiving a record of a first transaction concluded on a point of sale (POS), the record including a user identifier, one or more item identifiers, and a price paid for each item identifier of the one or more item identifiers.” Claim 8. See also, Flores, Figs. 22 (displaying in a user interface a selection of “Item 2202” and customer identifier “Credit Carb**** 2208” and “Accept and Finish 2210” button. Fig. 23 “You’re all set!”. Fig. 25 “Good news! No need to return this item, your refund is being processed.)”.
retrieving, from the database, the item entry [in the database] based on the item identifier associated with the at least one item and the customer identifier in the return request;
(Examiner interprets “the item entry” as the pricing information for the returned item stored in the merchant’s transaction records 112c for the original purchase.
See at least ¶ 56, “The return request may include a transaction identifier and identify one or more items from a transaction that customer is returning. The return request may further include … universal product code (UPC) or other identifier for returned items; … pricing information for the items to be returned; and a store authorization code. The transaction identifier may correspond to a specific transaction record 112c.” “[I]f a credit has been assigned and a return record and updated transaction record have been generated 422, 424, then the method 400 may include authorizing 430 … a refund for the purchase price in the updated transaction record generated at step 424, i.e. the original price for an item for which a refund is requested less any credit assigned for that item. The server system 102a may also include in generating 432 a return record indicating that refunds have been issued for the items referenced in the return request (storing in a database). The return record may be linked to or included in the transaction record for the original transaction evaluated at step 402. … a return request may be denied if any of the information in the return request does not match corresponding information in a transaction record 112c for which the return request is requesting a refund one or more items”. Any refund is based on the updated transaction record 112c, which is generated during the original purchase. The transaction record 112c is stored in a database. Fig. 1. The refund would consist of “the original price for an item for which a refund is requested less any credit assigned for that item.” Thus, transaction records 112c for the user are retrieved from a database. “[R]eceiving a record of a first transaction concluded on a point of sale (POS), the record including a user identifier, one or more item identifiers, and a price paid for each item identifier of the one or more item identifiers.” Claim 8. “[R]etrieving the record of the first transaction using the transaction identifier” Claim 5. A transaction record 112c includes a user identifier. ¶¶ 26, 49. See also, Flores, Figs. 22 (displaying in a user interface a selection of “Item 2202” and customer identifier “Credit Carb**** 2208” and “Accept and Finish 2210” button. Fig. 23 “You’re all set!”. Fig. 25 “Good news! No need to return this item, your refund is being processed.”)
based on the item entry [transaction record 112c], including the indication of the use of the coupon and the coupon information, determining a first refund for the at least one item including the portion of the coupon applied to the one or more items; and
(See at least ¶ 53, “[Fig. 4, step] 424 an updated transaction [record] recording the items for which a lower price was found and credits assigned” is “generated” for the original transaction and stored as transaction record 112c. ¶ 53. When a return request is received, the transaction record 112c is retrieved and “a refund for the purchase price in the updated transaction record generated at step 424, i.e. the original price for an item for which a refund is requested less any credit assigned for that item” is processed.
[See James]
Hatch discloses applying a coupon or price match discount to items purchased. Hatch does not disclose transmitting, to a manufacturer system, a request for reimbursement for the portion of the coupon applied to the one or more items. Thus, Hatch does not disclose but FOR VISA discloses:
responsively transmitting, to a manufacturer system, a request for reimbursement for the portion of the coupon applied to the one or more items;
(See at least Fig. 5, step 502, and associated text ¶ 21, “Based on the terms of the coupon and/or the transaction details, the mobile money platform calculates the value of the redeemed coupon … the mobile money platform forwards the reimbursement message (e.g., via MMS, SMS, USSD) to the manufacturer, which verifies the coupon and/or calculates the value of the coupon, and sends a message (e.g., via MMS, SMS, USSD) instructing the mobile money platform to transfer the value of the coupon from the manufacturer's mobile money account to the retailer's mobile money account.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined responsively transmitting, to a manufacturer system, a request for reimbursement for the portion of the coupon applied to the one or more items as explained in FOR VISA, to the known invention of Hatch, in the same field of invention, with the motivation for “the merchants [to] seek reimbursement from the relevant manufacturers that issued the coupons.” FOR VISA, ¶ 3.
Hatch discloses refunding the original purchase price paid to the customer less the amount of the applied coupon. Hatch does not disclose refunding the coupon amount to a manufacturer. Thus, Hatch does not disclose but James discloses:
responsive to determining the first refund, transmitting, to the manufacturer system [Coupon Sponsor 92], a second refund for the portion of the coupon applied to the one or more items.
(See at least ¶ 15, “a specific coupon” is tied to “a specific purchase” creating an “electronic audit train of coupon redemption”. “Once an E-Coupon 45 is selected, the Coupon Sponsor 92 preferably transfers funds to a cash reserve account 95 that may be accessed by the Transaction Processor 56 to reimburse Merchants, such as retailers, via electronic funds transfer ("EFT"), for the amount of the E-Coupon 45 upon redemption.” ¶ 60. Settlement is automated between coupon sponsor 92 reserve accounts and merchants through the transaction processor. Fig. 11. Coupons are processed as legal “tender.” ¶ 15. Expired coupons are removed, and their value is refunded to the coupon sponsors. ¶ 75. These features reasonably teach and suggest that when the original purchase price paid to the customer is refunded (less the amount of the applied coupon) as taught by Hatch, the coupon amount would be refunded to the manufacturer (program sponsor) reserve account 95. Fig. 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined responsive to determining the first refund, transmitting, to the manufacturer system, a second refund for the portion of the coupon applied to the one or more items, as explained in James, to the known invention of Hatch, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to “expedit[e] the coupon value reimbursement process,” James, ¶ 11, by creating “an electronic audit trail of coupon redemption” and treating coupons as “legal tender” for settlement and clearing purposes. James, ¶ 15.
Hatch, FOR VISA, and James disclose all the limitations of Independent Claim 1. Alternatively, Examiner provides Flores, which is prior art in the same field of invention and more clearly discloses the user interface and selection limitations of Independent Claim 1 through figures of said interface and selection features:
responsively transmitting, to a computing device, a user interface to display the one or more items associated with the transaction identifier [e.g., transaction record 1606];
(See at least Figs. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22).
receiving, from the computing device, a selection of at least one item to be returned, the selection comprising a return request that includes the item identifier for the at least one item and the customer identifier;
(See at least Fig. 22 (displaying in a user interface a selection of “Item 2202” and customer identifier “Credit Card****xxxx 2208” and “Accept and Finish 2210” button. Fig. 23, “You’re all set!”. Fig. 25, “Good news! No need to return this item, your refund is being processed.”).
retrieving, from the database [Fig. 6, ¶¶ 94. 95], the item entry [in the database] based on the item identifier associated with the at least one item and the customer identifier in the return request;
(See at least Fig. 22 (displaying in a user interface a selection of “Item 2202” and customer identifier “Credit Card****xxxx 2208” and “Accept and Finish 2210” button in response to Fig. 16 recepit selection. Fig. 23 “You’re all set!”. Fig. 25 “Good news! No need to return this item, your refund is being processed.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined responsively transmitting, to a computing device, a user interface to display the one or more items associated with the transaction identifier; receiving, from the computing device, a selection of at least one item to be returned, the selection comprising a return request that includes the item identifier for the at least one item and the customer identifier; and retrieving, from the database, the item entry based on the item identifier associated with the at least one item and the customer identifier in the return request, as explained in Flores, to the known invention of Hatch, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to obviate “slow, time-consuming, confusing, and unduly burdensome” “manual item returns” through customized self-return of items, “without physically returning the item to an item return location.” Flores, ¶¶ 2, 3, 31, 33.
Regarding Claim 2, Hatch, FOR VISA, James, and Flores discloses:
The computer implemented method of claim 1 and analyzing the coupon information
Hatch further discloses
wherein analyzing the coupon information comprises determining the portion of the coupon to apply to the one or more items.
(See at least Fig. 4, steps 406, 408, 410, 420, which describe Step 404—“identifying 404 from the received transaction record the item identifiers of items purchased as part of the transaction and the price for each item”; ¶ 45; Step 406—“Identifying the lowest price among the third party pricing data for each item identifier of at least a portion of the item identifiers in a transaction may include determining a per-unit cost for corresponding items in the third party pricing data”; ¶ 47; Step 408— “for each item identifier of some or all of the item identifiers of the transaction record determining 408 a price difference between the lowest price found for the each item identifier in the third party pricing data”; ¶ 48. Collectively, these steps determine the portion of the coupon to apply to the one to more items based on a price match for each item. Price matching and coupons work in the same way and are equivalent. ¶ 42 (“Any discounts due to coupons or price matching may also be noted for each item identifier for which such price adjustments were applied.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Hatch, FOR VISA, James, and Flores discloses:
The computer implemented method of claim 1 and the one or more items
Hatch further discloses
wherein the one or more items includes a plurality of items,
(See at least Fig. 4, steps 406, 408, 410, 420, which describe Step 404—“identifying 404 from the received transaction record the item identifiers of items [plural] purchased as part of the transaction and the price for each item”)
wherein coupon [price matching] information comprises an indicator that the coupon is applicable to each of the plurality of the one or more items in the sales transaction.
(See at least ¶ 48, “The sum of the credits for each item identifier as determined 410 may then be assigned to the user associated with the transaction record, such as by assigning a credit equal to the sum of the credits to an account associated with a same user identifier as included in the transaction record.” See also, ¶ 47. “The indicator is the applied discount. The user record may further include a record of credits 112b assigned to the user associated with the user record as well as a redemption or usage of such credits.” ¶ 27.
Alternatively, James, Fig.