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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7, 10, 13, and 17-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 filed April 24, 2026 are pending and are hereby examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-12 are directed to a system, and claims 13-20 are directed to a method, all of which are statutory. Claims 1-20 are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1, 10, and 13 recite an abstract idea of sales data processing with approved brands.
The independent claims 1, 10, and 13 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
…;
…;
…;
…;
…;
…;
acquire settlement data associated with a code symbol read from… the settlement data including information for completing a code settlement payment for a sales transaction;
transmit the settlement data via…;
receive a settlement result notification via… the settlement result notification including a code settlement brand used for the code settlement payment;
compare the code settlement brand in the settlement result notification to the listing of approved brands…;
output a notification that the code settlement payment was performed using an unapproved code settlement brand when the code settlement brand included in the settlement result notification does not match an approved brand on the listing.
7. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, sales data processing with approved brands falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
8. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites sales data processing with approved brands with generally recited computer elements such as a memory unit, code reader, store server, control program, communication interface, processor, external server, customer terminal, printer, and optical scanner which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for sales data processing with approved brands. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
9. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a memory unit, code reader, store server, control program, communication interface, processor, external server, printer, customer terminal, and optical scanner to perform these steps 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. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
10. Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 20, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of sales data processing with approved brands, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
11. Regarding dependent claims 5 and 17, although these claims recite a generally recited display unit, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of sales data processing with approved brands, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claim 6, although this claim recites a generally recited product scanner, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of sales data processing with approved brands, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
13. Regarding dependent claims 7 and 19, although these claims recite a generally recited product scanner and customer terminal, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of sales data processing with approved brands, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
14. Regarding dependent claim 8, although this claim recites a generally recited processor, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of sales data processing with approved brands, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Regarding dependent claim 12, although this claim recites a generally recited display unit and processor, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of sales data processing with approved brands, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
16. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Examiner Notes
17. Claims 1-20 are novel and unobvious over the prior art, however, there remains a pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
18. After further search and consideration, the most pertinent U.S. prior art was found to be Kelly et al (US 2016/0086454) and Tonnison et al (US 2019/0244224). Kelly et al (US 2016/0086454) is directed to a receipt generation service. Tonnison et al (US 2019/0244224) is directed to transforming scattered business operations into centralized business operations. Swithinbank et al (Planning and Managing the Deployment of WebSphere Commerce, NPL) was found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art, and is directed to next online commerce.
19. However, both the most pertinent U.S. prior art and NPL fail to disclose all of the limitations particularly:
compare the code settlement brand in the settlement result notification to a listing of approved brands;
output a notification that the code settlement payment was performed using an unapproved code settlement brand when the code settlement brand included in the settlement result notification does not match an approved brand on the listing.
20. No prior art cited here or in any previous Office Action neither fully anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter present in the independent claims, either alone or in combination. The limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed in the application, are novel and unobvious.
Response to Arguments
21. Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, the applicant’s claims have overcome any potential 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, as noted above.
a) Argument #1: Ex parte Desjardins case
22. The applicant tries to use the Ex parte Desjardins case as an example, therefore creating a two part test for reciting an improvement to the technical field. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Desjardins contains specific limitations related to a technical problem in machine learning (catastrophic forgetting). The decision was calling it overbroad to equate those limitations with any high level machine learning algorithm. The instant application does not contain any limitations related to technological improvements to machine learning and as such is more similar to the facts of Example 47 claim 2 of the July 2024 examples (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf).
23. Sales data processing with approved brands is an improvement in an abstract idea, which does not provide an improvement in technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a), which states: However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. The recited software in the claim is recited at a high level and per MPEP 2106.05(f) that is not sufficient to provide a practical application. With respect to the machine learning elements, the more recent 2024 guidance suggests that training a machine learning is a recitation of mathematical concepts and high level application of machine learning does not provide a practical application. Regarding the software and computer elements, these elements are used in their ordinary capacity and MPEP 2106.05(f) states: Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
24. First up is the first test, which is whether the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a) establishes the requirements for “Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field” and states: “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… Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology… the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology… the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification… An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome”.
25. MPEP 2106.05(a) also states that the following are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality: “Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer” (see FairWarning case) and “Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality” (citing BSG Tech case). The examiner holds that the Specification is conclusory and that the applicant does not provide sufficient technical details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing a technical improvement relating to how analysis of user transactions is improved. The applicant does not provide technical details of how to analyze these user transactions. The applicant merely argues that there is an improvement in efficiency with no actual technical improvements, just because a system uses fewer computational resources does not equate to an improvement in technology. Therefore, the examiner holds that the applicant does not provide sufficient technical details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing a technical improvement or an improvement in technology.
26. Next is test 2, which is whether or not the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. As discussed before, the claims are directed to an abstract idea of sales data processing with approved brands, which falls under commercial or legal interactions, or could also fall under fundamental economic practices. In MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), it describes concepts relating to managing relationships or transactions between people, or satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation, as being under certain methods of organizing human activity. Sales data processing with approved brands would fall under sales activities or behaviors and business relations, therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The applicant does not recite any additional elements other than the additional elements of a memory unit, code reader, store server, control program, communication interface, processor, external server, printer, customer terminal, and optical scanner with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. Applicant does not claim any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
27. It must be noted that the applicant does not claim a reduction of computational load or complexity or increasing efficiencies. Additionally, the applicant does not claim any metrics to measure an improvement to picking efficiency or computational complexity or computational load, nor teach hardware or software capable of measuring any of this data. Applicant’s claimed elements may or may not have the incidental effect of reducing complexity of a problem simply because they remove data but this merely improves the data and does not improve the processing of the data or improve computer technology or any other technology. The applicant thus does not claim a technical improvement under MPEP 2106.05(a). Applicant appears to be claiming a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art” under MPEP 2106.05(a) and this does not provide an improvement to technology.
28. The claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. Claims are directed to an abstract idea of sales data processing with approved brands. Applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, the Specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems or technology. Applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
29. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of the independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
30. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Swithinbank et al (Planning and Managing the Deployment of WebSphere Commerce, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
31. 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).
32. 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.
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
34. 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.
35. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
36. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights