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 .
Claim Status
A preliminary amendment was filed on 5/29/2024.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are independent.
Claims 1-9 are currently amended.
Claims 10-11 are original.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 5/29/2024 and 4/17/2025 were filed before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “The payment system according to any one of claim 1,wherein the at least one first processor is further configured to execute the first instructions to: an instruction of the payment of the first amount of money that is an amount obtained by subtracting the second amount of money from the purchase amount of money by receiving an input of the second amount of money by an operation by the customer on the terminal device.” The limitation is understood as “The payment system according to any one of claim 1,wherein the at least one first processor is further configured to execute the first instructions to: receive an instruction of the payment of the first amount of money that is an amount obtained by subtracting the second amount of money from the purchase amount of money by receiving an input of the second amount of money by an operation by the customer on the terminal device.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-11 are directed to a system, method, or product, and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. Regarding product claim 11, the claim recites that the recording medium is non-transitory. (Step 1: YES)
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method claim 10 and product claim 11. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
[Claim 1] (Currently Amended) A payment system comprising:
an information processing device including
a first memory storing first instructions; and
at least one first processor configured to execute the first instructions to:
acquire identification information about a product planned to be purchased by a customer by an operation by the customer on a terminal device, and
receive, from the terminal device, an instruction of a payment of a first amount of money in a purchase amount of money of the product registered based on the acquired identification information; andan adjustment device including
a second memory storing second instructions; and
at least one second processor configured to execute the second instructions to:
receive an instruction of a payment of a second amount of money that is a difference between the purchase amount of money and the first amount of money.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite a fundamental economic practice, as they set forth or describe facilitating payments of amounts of money. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The terminal device, information processing device (including first memory and at least one first processor), and adjustment device (including second memory and at least one second processor) in claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 10 and 11 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 1: terminal device, information processing device (including first memory and at least one first processor), and adjustment device (including second memory and at least one second processor)
Claim 10: terminal device, information processing device, adjustment device
Claim 11: non-transitory recording medium, terminal device, information processing device, adjustment device
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0169-0181] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 10, and 11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-9 further define the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-11 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-5, 7-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joglekar (US 10,049,376 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11 Joglekar discloses a payment system and associated method/product (see col. 2, ll. 10-26) comprising:
an information processing device including a first memory storing first instructions; and at least one first processor configured to execute the first instructions to (see Fig. 1, mobile device 132):
acquire identification information about a product planned to be purchased by a customer by an operation by the customer on a terminal device (see Fig. 9; col. 7 ll. 47-64; wherein “identification information about a product” reasonably encompasses price/amount), and
receive, from the terminal device, an instruction of a payment of a first amount of money in a purchase amount of money of the product registered based on the acquired identification information (see Fig. 11, cols. 7-8, ll. 65-7); and
an adjustment device including a second memory storing second instructions; and at least one second processor configured to execute the second instructions to (see Fig. 1, merchant’s POS device 142):
receive an instruction of a payment of a second amount of money that is a difference between the purchase amount of money and the first amount of money (see Fig. 12; col. 8, ll. 19-32, wherein the claim limitation broadly encompasses the QR code used to pay both parts of the total, e.g. the $24.77 and $43.48).
Regarding claim 2, Joglekar discloses the payment system according to claim 1: wherein the at least one first processor is further configured to execute the first instructions to: generate adjustment information related to the second amount of money, the adjustment information being used by the adjustment device for a payment of the second amount of money (see Fig. 12; col. 8, ll. 19-32, wherein the claim limitation broadly encompasses the QR code used to pay both parts of the total, e.g. the $24.77 and $43.48).
Regarding claim 3, Joglekar discloses the payment system according to claim 1, wherein the payment of the second amount of money is payment with a portable cash voucher, wherein the at least one second processor is further configured to execute the second instructions to: make the payment of the second amount of money by an operation by a store clerk (see Fig. 12; col. 8, ll. 19-32, wherein the claim limitation broadly encompasses the QR code used to pay both parts of the total, e.g. the $24.77 and $43.48).
Regarding claim 4, Joglekar discloses the payment system according to claim 1, wherein the payment of the second amount of money is a cash payment (see col. 10, ll. 10-20, i.e. “decrease in debit card balance”)
Regarding claim 5, Joglekar discloses the payment system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first processor is further configured to execute the first instructions to: receive an instruction of the payment of the first amount of money by receiving an input of the first amount of money by the operation by the customer on the terminal device (see Fig. 11, cols. 7-8, ll. 65-7).
Regarding claim 7, Joglekar discloses the payment system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first processor is further configured to execute the first instructions to: make the payment of the first amount of money (see Fig. 12; col. 8, ll. 19-32, wherein the claim limitation broadly encompasses the QR code used to pay both parts of the total, e.g. the $24.77 and $43.48).
Regarding claim 8, Joglekar discloses the payment system according to claim 7, wherein the payment of the first amount of money is at least one of a credit payment, a code payment, and an electronic money payment (see Fig. 12; col. 8, ll. 19-32, wherein the claim limitation broadly encompasses the QR code used to pay both parts of the total, e.g. the $24.77 and $43.48).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joglekar (US 10,049,376 B1) in view of Schimmel (US 2002/0103753 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Joglekar discloses the payment system according to any one of claim 1, wherein the at least one first processor is further configured to execute the first instructions to: receive an instruction of the payment of the first amount of money that is an amount obtained by receiving input by an operation by the customer on the terminal device (see Fig. 11, cols. 7-8, ll. 65-7).
Joglekar does not explicitly disclose, but Schimmel teaches an amount obtained by subtracting the second amount of money from the purchase amount of money by receiving an input of the second amount of money (see Fig. 5, wherein the customer can enter the amount of either source, wherein when a customer enters one source amount in a two-source split, the other is the purchase amount minus the entered amount).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Joglekar to include the feature of Schimmel to split the costs of goods and service among multiple payment sources without undue burden to the consumer or vendor (see Schimmel, para. 0001).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joglekar (US 10,049,376 B1) in view of Patterson (US 8,636,203 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Joglekar does not explicitly disclose, but Patterson teaches when the adjustment device makes a payment of a partial amount of the second amount of money, generate adjustment information related to a remaining amount in the second amount of money, the adjustment information related to a remaining amount that another adjustment device makes a payment of (see abstract; col. 4, ll. 9-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Joglekar to include the feature of Patterson to avoid the delay and cost associated with having to re-execute transactions for less than the entire amount (see Patterson, col. 4, ll. 9-22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chin (US 9,875,469 B1) discloses a method including when a merchant sells goods or services in a sales transaction, a merchant device can generate a bill. The bill includes an itemized list of the goods and services, a price for each item, and an identifier of the sales transaction. A first customer and a second customer split the bill using a first customer device and a second customer device, respectively. The first customer device establishes communication between the first customer device and the merchant device. Using the identifier of the sales transaction, the first customer device pays a portion of the itemized list of the goods and services at the merchant device. The second customer device establishes communication between the second customer device and the merchant device. Using the identifier, the second customer device pays a remaining portion of the itemized list of the goods and services at the merchant device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights