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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 11/19/25.
Claims 1, 8, 13, 18 have been amended.
Claims 3,6,9 have been previously cancelled.
Therefore, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-23 are now pending and have been addressed below.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-12, 21-23 are directed to a system, Claims 13-20 are directed to a method. Thus, this claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claim falls within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 1 Identifying a Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, prong 1, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 13 recite methods for enabling item returns including capture item identification information; access a returns account associated with a selected user attempting to return a selected item, transaction history data, a set of score generation rules to calculate a per-user return-trust score for a selected user as a function of numbers of returns by the selected user and a ratio of purchases to return, and automatically calculate a per-item return value of a selected item as a function of a ratio of purchases to returns of the selected item by a plurality of users within a predetermined time-period; analyze the per-user return-trust score as a function of the one or more models and relative to a return trust score threshold based in part on the ratio of purchases to returns and item data associated with the selected item, including the per-item return value, and determine whether to authorize unassisted self-return of the selected item based on results of the analysis; generate a set of item disposition instructions associated with the selected item in real-time based on a set of item disposition criteria and a set of item return data, wherein the set of item disposition instructions comprising at least one of a first instruction to leave the selected item at a designated return location comprising a first return receptable or a second instruction to retain the selected item by the selected user; in response to the determination to authorize the unassisted self-return, a return authorization and the set of item disposition instructions associated with the selected user to render the set of item disposition instructions; receive at the designated return location identifying information from scan data electronically obtained based on a scan of the returned selected item, and obtain an identification of the selected item from the item identifying information of the scan data, access and retrieve return transaction data from a remote source based on the identification of the selected item, and verify a return of the selected item at the designated return location prior to allocation of a refund amount: control an allocation of a refund of the refund amount as a function of the identification of the selected item and in response to the verification of receipt of the selected item at the designated return location: and in response to a complete return of the selected item or failure to return the selected item or failure of the return, update in real-time the per-user return-trust score of the user selected user based on the complete return or failure to return; store the updated per-user return-trust score in the returns account associated with the selected user
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) and mathematical calculations (trust scores), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as a kiosk system, an electronic scanner device, processor, a memory, an application, a calculation component implemented on at least one processor, network, database, one or more models, an return authorization component, an item disposition component, a return manager component, a user mobile device), the claims are directed to enabling item returns by generating item disposition instructions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of enabling item returns. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – a kiosk system, an electronic scanner device, processor, a memory, an application, a calculation component implemented on at least one processor, network, database, one or more models, an return authorization component, an item disposition component, a return manager component, a user mobile device. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. a) The additional elements merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations of “apply one or more models”, such applying of a model is no more than putting data into a black box operation, devoid of technological implementation and application details. Each step requires a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The claim does not provide any details about how the models operates or how the return authorization component uses the model to analyze per user return trust score as a function of one or more models. In addition, limitations reciting “storing the updated per-user return-trust score in the returns account associated with the selected user” is insignificant extra-solution activity that merely stores data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application for that additional reason. See Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using 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 claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” to; enabling item returns based on user return scores. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims are not significantly more because they are part of the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to the kiosk system, an electronic scanner device, processor, a memory, an application, a calculation component, database, network, one or more models, an return authorization component, an item disposition component, a return manager component, a user mobile device, these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Paragraph [0039] details “ The memory 108 includes any quantity of media associated with or accessible by the computing device 102. , [0040] the memory stores data, one or more applications [0064] kiosk is a computing device. The kiosk incudes a scanner [0193] general purpose computing system, [0160] self-return application.” In addition, limitations reciting “storing the updated per-user return-trust score in the returns account associated with the selected user” is insignificant extra-solution activity that merely stores data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above, receiving, analyzing, transmitting and displaying data. Furthermore, the use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as a well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. 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); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); Also see MPEP 2106.05(d) discussing elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional activities in particular fields. Lastly, the additional elements provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore the additional elements amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and are well-understood, routine and conventional limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the function of any computer itself, applying the exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment such as computing. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claims 2,4-5, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-23 add additional limitations, for example but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as representative claims 1 and 13. Claims 2, 5, 7, 14, 17-18 recites outputting a notification…. associated with a second user...” limitations recite data output. Data output is insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The “a notification component, implemented on the at least one processor, that...” element also describes the technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception and does not impose meaningful limits on the claims. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims also do not recite limitations that qualify as significantly more the identified abstract idea because the limitations describe the conventional computer function of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “storing and retrieving information in memory.” Such functions do not qualify as significantly more than an abstract idea when recited in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, as explained earlier in the discussion regarding the integration of an abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer or processor to perform the steps recited in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Claims 4, 8, 15-16 recites calculating component configured to calculate per item return value…. ..”. These limitation further describes the abstract idea identified in claims 1 and 13. The claims also do not recite limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. The “the calculation component, implemented on the at least one processor” element only describes the technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception and does not impose meaningful limits on the claims. Examiner also notes the additional element of using a computer or processor to perform the steps recited in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive. Thus. the claims are not patent-eligible.
Claims 10, 12 recites assign a second user to assist the selected user with completion; authorize the self-return….; approve completion of a return. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claims 7, 11, 19-20 recites direct the selected user to scan a code corresponding to the designated return location; activate a scanning device of the user mobile device and scan the code; and communicate the set of item return data to the returns manager component in response to scanning the code; initiating, by the application, the return of the selected item; obtaining, by the application in response to initiating the return, the set of item return data; communicating, by the application, the set of item return data; receiving, by the application, the set of item disposition instructions; and controlling, by the application, a graphical user interface of the user mobile device to render the set of item disposition instructions which is the abstract idea organizing human activity and using a computer as a tool to perform item returns. Claims 21-23. recites a scanner, separate from the user mobile device, proximate the designated return location and communicatively coupled with the returns manager component, the scanner configured to communicate to the returns manager component identifying data associated with the selected item in response to scanning the selected item; wherein the returns management component is further configured to verify and confirm a return of the selected item based on the identifying data received from the scanner; wherein the returns management component, in response to the verification of and the confirmation of the return of the selected item based on the identifying data received from the scanner, is further configured to control a third party payment system to issue a refund to the selected user; wherein the returns manager component is further configured to control a physical movement of the selected item from the first return receptacle to an intended disposition location based on a per-item return value of the selected item being within a return value threshold range. The additional elements of a scanner is recited at high level of generality. These limitations merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The dependent claims do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computing system is merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, the claims do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejection, Examiner has considered all arguments and respectfully disagrees. New limitations have been considered in rejection above. Applicant on pages 2-4 stats that claims recite specific limitations directed to improvements by efficient control of computer systems through application of one or more models and score generation rules. Further applicant discusses Desjardins decision.
While the Applicant’s specification may disclose alleged improvements to processor efficiency, the specification merely recites the alleged improvements ([0150] apply risk models), with no further detail to how the claim set achieves such an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a) recites “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Examiner notes neither specification nor claims recite how the improvement/processor efficiency is achieved. The instant claims are directed to an abstract idea, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the instant claims are only to generic computing components that implement the abstract idea on a computing environment. As such, it can be interpreted that the instant claims only make the abstract idea more efficient, and there are not actual changes/improvements to any computing components
With regards to Desjardin decision, claims were directed to training a machine learning model, however current claims do not recite any ML model or training of a ML model. The amended claims recite apply one or more models, thus the limitations are recited at high level of generality without any details regarding training or model or how the model is used. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dejaeger (Pub. No. 2001/0037207) discloses financial settlement for returned items “may alternatively be given at one of the kiosks 104A … N in the form of a contingent or revocable credit.” Paragraph 0012. Dejaeger further teaches:
Paragraph 0013: The kiosk 104 preferably presents the option to the customer of performing the return transaction with or without human intervention. If the customer chooses to perform the transaction without human intervention, the customer is allowed to … deposit the returned item in a secure area. If the customer fails to deposit the returned item, or deposits an empty box, a charge will be issued against the customer for any credit issued, using the financial information provided at the kiosk 104.
Li (Pub. No. 2014/0316919) broadly discloses a system “configured to facilitate automated product return.” Paragraphs 0031-0037.
Barstad (US 10,497,000) discloses return request processing upon providing the information to an authorization server, the server can identify historical transaction data of the returning customer from data stored in a repository. Based on the historical transaction data and on the return request, the authorization server determines a return authorization decision based on an item-level return policy, another decision based on customer-specific return privileges
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGEETA BAHL whose telephone number is (571)270-7779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 4PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626