DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
This Office Action is in response to the Response to the Restriction Requirement filed on 11/21/2025. Applicant elects Invention I (claims 1-10 and 11-19) and Species A (claim 13) without traverse. Claims 14 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards the non-elected invention and species. Claims 1-13 and 15-19 are currently pending and examined below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a management service module” in claims 3-4, “an authentication service module” in claims 5-6, “Redis-Sync service module” in claims 7-8, “CouchDB-Sync service module” in claims 9-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “transmitting data associated with a transaction, with the POS device, to a payment server, data associated with a transaction over a network,”. However, the wording of the limitation renders it unclear. It is unclear what is meant by transmitting data associated with a transaction … data associated with a transaction over a network. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Dependent claims 12-13 and 15-19 are also rejected based on their dependency to claim 11.
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 1-13 and 15-19 is/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 nature phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-13 and 15-19 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
A system for processing transactions comprising:
a point of sale (“POS”) device configured to transmit data associated with a transaction to gain approval of the transaction initiated by a customer;
a payment server configured to communicate with said POS device during a completion of the transaction over a network and receive the data associated with the transaction and further configured to transmit approval of the transaction to said POS device over the network;
a device monitoring server configured to communicate with said POS device over the network and monitor and optimize a performance of said POS device;
a customer engagement server configured to communicate with said POS device during the completion of the transaction over the network, to receive data associated with the transaction and advance at least one promotion to a customer requesting the transaction, and configured to track a loyalty plan with rewards associated with the customer, and configured to distribute at least one of a coupon and a voucher based on the data associated with the transaction;
a checkout assistance server configured to communicate with said POS device during the completion of the transaction over the network and reduce shrinkage associated with unexpected items in a bagging area near said POS device; and
a Harmonized Identity Management (“HIDM”) server configured to receive respective requests for authorization tokens from all of said payment server, said device monitoring server, said customer engagement server, and said checkout assistance server, each of the authorization tokens providing access to protected resources, said HIDM server configured to provide the authorization tokens in response to the respective requests.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified above do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a commercial activity (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations). Commercial interactions fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because commercial interactions are related to commerce and economy. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., customer and merchant). Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two:
In Step 2A Prong Two, these additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) (Step 2B, No).
Claims 2-10 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 2 recites the additional element “wherein said HIDM server utilizes OAuth2/OIDC protocols”. Claim 3 recites the additional element “wherein said HIDM server further comprises: a management service module configured to expose Create, Read, Update, and Delete (CRUD) application programming interfaces (APIs) for different entities utilizing said HIDM server”. Claim 4 recites the additional element “further comprising: a database accessible by said HIDM server, wherein said management service module is configured to provide separate portions of said database for said payment server, said device monitoring server, said customer engagement server, and said checkout assistance server.” Claim 5 recites the additional element “wherein said HIDM server further comprises: an authentication service module configured to expose openID based end points for authentication.” Claim 6 recites the additional element “wherein said authentication service module is further configured to provide separate CouchDB databases for each of said payment server, said device monitoring server, said customer engagement server, and said checkout assistance server.” Claim 7 recites the additional element “wherein said HIDM server further comprises: at least one Redis-Sync service module configured to”. Claim 8 recites the additional element “wherein said at least one Redis-Sync service module is further defined as: a plurality of Redis-Sync service modules, each deployed for one of said payment server, said device monitoring server, said customer engagement server, and said checkout assistance server.” Claim 9 recites the additional element “wherein said HIDM server further comprises: at least one CouchDB-Sync service module configured to … specific to one of said payment server, said device monitoring server, said customer engagement server, and said checkout assistance server between a SQL database to a CouchDB.” Claim 10 recites the additional element “wherein said at least one CouchDB-Sync service module is further defined as: a plurality of CouchDB-Sync service modules, each deployed for one of said payment server, said device monitoring server, said customer engagement server, and said checkout assistance server.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 11 recites (additional elements underlined):
A method of operating a system for processing transactions comprising:
transmitting data associated with a transaction, with the POS device, to a payment server, data associated with a transaction over a network, wherein the payment server is configured to transmit approval of the transaction to the POS device over the network;
optimizing a performance of the POS device with a device monitoring server configured to communicate with the POS device over the network;
receiving the data associated with the transaction with a customer engagement server;
distributing, with the customer engagement server, at least one of a coupon and a voucher to the customer associated with the transaction based on the data associated with the transaction;
reducing shrinkage associated with unexpected items in a bagging area near the POS device with a checkout assistance server that is configured to communicate with the POS device during the completion of the transaction over the network;
receiving, with a Harmonized Identity Management (“HIDM”) server, respective requests for authorization tokens from all of the payment server, the device monitoring server, the customer engagement server, and the checkout assistance server, wherein each of the authorization tokens provide access to protected resources; and
providing, with the HIDM server, the authorization tokens in response to the respective requests.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity). For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 12-13 and 15-19 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 11 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 12 recites the additional element “utilizing, with the HIDM server, OAuth2/OIDC protocols”. Claim 13 recites the additional element “with the HIDM server”, “tokens”, “from one of the payment server, the device monitoring server, the customer engagement server, and the checkout assistance server on behalf of another of the payment server, the device monitoring server, the customer engagement server, and the checkout assistance server”. Claim 15 recites the additional elements “with the HIDM server”. Claim 16 recites the additional elements “exposing, with an authentication sever module of the HIDM server, openID based end points for authentication.” Claim 17 recites the additional elements “deploying, from within the HIDM server, a CouchDB-Sync service module for each the payment server, the device monitoring server, the customer engagement server, and the checkout assistance server.” Claim 18 recites the additional elements “deploying, from within the HIDM server, a Redis-Sync service module for each of the payment server, the device monitoring server, the customer engagement server, and the checkout assistance server.” Claim 19 recites the additional elements “hosting the HIDM server as a cloud service.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after an exhaustive search, the claims currently overcome prior art. While the prior art teach some of the elements of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at Applicant’s claimed invention unless one was using Applicant’s claims and specification as a roadmap, thus using impermissible hindsight. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Paul et al. (US 2023/0139491 A1) discloses a system comprises a first authentication system serving a plurality of in-store point of sale terminals and implementing a physical channel authentication policy and a second authentication system serving a plurality of user devices accessing an e-commerce service and implementing an e-commerce channel authentication policy, and a tokenization system. The tokenization system being configured to generate a first token in response to receiving a first user credential from an in-store point of sale terminal via the first authentication system, generate a second token in response to receiving a second user credential from a user device via the second authentication system, and forward the first token and the second token to the retailer backend system, wherein the first token and the second token are generated based on a same tokenization protocol. However, the tokens are generated for users, not servers who are seeking to obtain access to protected resources as claimed. Paul also does not disclose receiving requests for authorization tokens from the payment server, the device monitoring server, the customer engagement server, and the checkout assistance server as claimed. Catoe also does not reduce shrinkage associated with unexpected items in a bagging area near the POS and does not monitor and optimize the POS device as claimed.
Palande et al. (US 2023/0120798 A1) discloses apparatuses and methods to detect a mis-scan of an item. In some embodiments, there is provided a system for detecting a mis-scan of an item for purchase comprising a checkout station; a first staging location; a second staging location; a first area of interest at the checkout station; a second area of interest at the checkout station; a camera; and a control circuit configured to: receive an identifier of a first item; detect a hand of a user purchasing the first item, the first item, and a scanner on a first image captured by the camera; in response to the detection of the hand, the first item, and the scanner, initiate detection of mis-scan items during a checkout process; determine that a payment transaction has been received; and stop the detection of mis-scan items. However, Palande also does not disclose receiving requests for authorization tokens from the payment server, the device monitoring server, the customer engagement server, and the checkout assistance server as claimed. Catoe also does not monitor and optimize the POS device as claimed.
Gonzales et al. (US 2021/0073766 A1) discloses a merchant point of sale (POS) device to identify items or services for purchase by a customer, and costs for each. One or more payment amounts are sent from the merchant POS device to a checkout server using an application programming interface (API), which the checkout server sends on to an authorized payment terminal device that then reads payment information from a payment object and sends the payment information back to the checkout server. The checkout server processes the transaction and confirms transaction completion to the merchant POS device and payment terminal device. However, Gonzales also does not disclose receiving requests for authorization tokens from the payment server, the device monitoring server, the customer engagement server, and the checkout assistance server as claimed. Catoe also does not reduce shrinkage associated with unexpected items in a bagging area near the POS and does not monitor and optimize the POS device as claimed.
Khan et al. (US 2021/0035086 A1) discloses a system for facilitating payment and non-payment transactions between a computing device that lacks an activated payment application and a merchant is described. In an embodiment, a transaction bridge server receives, from a merchant server, transaction information for a particular transaction between a user and a merchant. The transaction bridge server generates a URL representing the particular transaction, sends the URL to the merchant server, and receives, from a web browser of a computing device, an indication of an interaction between the computing device and a touchpoint comprising the URL, the indication comprising a request to access the URL. The transaction bridge server generates a display page customized for the user, the display page comprising the transaction information, sends the display page to the web browser of the computing device, receives an acceptance of the particular transaction, and initiates the particular transaction. However, Khan also does not disclose receiving requests for authorization tokens from the payment server, the device monitoring server, the customer engagement server, and the checkout assistance server as claimed. Catoe also does not reduce shrinkage associated with unexpected items in a bagging area near the POS and does not monitor and optimize the POS device as claimed.
Catoe et al. (US Patent No. 11,138,584 A1) discloses a checkout system that includes a checkout station having a housing, a customer interface and a customer unloading station. A point-of-sale system has a microprocessor and memory operatively associated with one another to identify products being purchased, payments tendered therefor and to store transaction information locally at the checkout station or remotely from the checkout station. The microprocessor has programming configured to allow an item to be scanned by a product identification scanner, and an attendant command module. However, Catoe also does not disclose receiving requests for authorization tokens from the payment server, the device monitoring server, the customer engagement server, and the checkout assistance server as claimed. Catoe also does not reduce shrinkage associated with unexpected items in a bagging area near the POS and does not monitor and optimize the POS device as claimed.
Ranjan (US 2023/0229670 A1) discloses techniques for copying data from a source database to a target database in a database replication system which includes a database event mining system, an event interceptor process and an event receptor process. In one aspect, the event interceptor detects a failure in the event receptor and switches to a mode in which it rejects new database events from the database event mining system. The event interceptor can also request that the database event mining system resend the event after a specified delay. The event interceptor can also shut itself down for a specified period of time, then restart and listen for a pairing request from the event receptor. In another aspect, the event receptor can request that the database event mining system send event data from a specified system change number. Ranjan also discloses the use of Redis and CouchDB. However, Ranjan also does not disclose or render obvious the limitations above.
Chalasani et al. (US 2025/0165474 A1) discloses an electronic online system is configured to receive, at the electronic online system, an expression of a use case; determine, using a machine-learning technique with the expression of the use case as input, a data source and a time-to-live (TTL) value to satisfy the use case; and configure a data cache to store data received from the data source with the TTL value. Chalasani also discloses the use of Redis, CouchDB, and the replicating of data. However, Chalasani also does not disclose or render obvious the limitations above.
Terborg et al. (US 2024/0012834 A1) discloses a method system for synchronizing data across immutable and mutable data storage systems. The system provides an endpoint configured to receive messages associated with database actions from client devices. Responsive to receiving a message associated with a database action via the endpoint, the system routes the message to an action queue. The system transmits the message from the action queue to multiple data engines corresponding to multiple data storage systems that store data, causing the multiple data engines to perform the action based on the message. The multiple data engines include a mutable data engine corresponding to a mutable data storage system and an immutable data engine corresponding to an immutable data storage system. The system tracks the action queue to determine an action performance speed of each data engine. Terborg also discloses the use of APIs, CRUD, the replication of data, the synchronization of data, the use of CouchDB, and the use of Redis. However, Terborg also does not disclose or render obvious the limitations above.
Friedman (US 2017/0054726 A1) discloses a system and method for accessing content by clients of one or more resources located among one or more resource providers. In one implementation, clients are granted access to resources on the resource provider without the need for communication to the resource provider apriori using distributed authorization tokens. In one example, access control to the resources is handled by an independent server. However, Friedman does not disclose receiving requests for authorization tokens from the payment server, the device monitoring server, the customer engagement server, and the checkout assistance server as claimed. The authorization tokens are provided to users, not servers as claimed.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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 at 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621