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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply dated 2/18/2026. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined in this reply.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been considered and have been found to be persuasive. Therefore the previous 101 rejection has been removed
Regarding the 102/103 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 102/103 rejections have been considered and are considered persuasive in part, however are moot in view of new grounds of rejection found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0086454 A1 to Kelly (“Kelly”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074675 A1 to (“Calman”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0356689 A1 to Gotanda (“Gotanda”)
In regards to claims 1 and 17, Kelly discloses the following limitations:
A method for generating digital receipts, the method comprising: receiving transaction information corresponding to a transaction conducted in an environment; (see at least Kelly Abstract “receiving, by a server via a network, transaction information descriptive of a money transfer transaction initiated at a point of entry device…generating, by the server, the receipt that includes the receipt information, and transmitting the receipt from the server to the point of entry device via the network.”)
a processor; and a memory configured to store: a database configured to store a plurality of receipt templates; (see at least Kelly Figure 1 (112, 114, 126))
receiving, from a memory, a receipt template; (see at least Kelly Figure 1 (120) and (126), and ¶ 0042 “In response to determining the receipt information, selecting the receipt template, and determining the service level information, the central server 110 may generate a receipt that includes the receipt information, the regulatory requirements information, and the service level information.”)
populating the receipt template to include at least a portion of the transaction information; (see at least Kelly ¶ 0042 “he central server 110 may generate the receipt by inserting information associated with the money transfer transaction (e.g., fees, amount of funds provided by sending party, a money transfer transaction type, a recipient associated with the money transfer transaction, the service level information, etc.) into one or more transaction detail data fields of the selected receipt template”)
generating a digital receipt file based on the at least the portion of the transaction information and the receipt template; and (see at least Kelly ¶ 0042 “the central server 110 may generate the receipt by inserting information associated with the money transfer transaction (e.g., fees, amount of funds provided by sending party, a money transfer transaction type, a recipient associated with the money transfer transaction, the service level information, etc.) into one or more transaction detail data fields of the selected receipt template”)
transmitting, over a network to a receipt delivery device, the digital receipt file. (see at least Kelly ¶ 0043 “The central server 110 may transmit the receipt to the first point of entry device 130 via the network 160 using the communication interface 128. In an aspect, the central server 110 may generate a portable document format (PDF) copy of the receipt, and the PDF copy of the receipt may be transmitted from the central server 110 to the first point of entry device 130 via the network 160 using the communication interface 128.”; and ¶ 0059 “generate the second receipt (e.g., the receiving party receipt), and/or a PDF copy of the second receipt, and may initiate transmission of the second receipt or the PDF copy of the second receipt to the receiving party. In an aspect, the receiving party may be a user 102 of the electronic device 180, and the second receipt may be transmitted to the receiving party by transmitting a message (e.g., a simple message service (SMS) message, a text message, a multimedia message, etc.) to the electronic device 180.”)
Kelly does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
an environment of a plurality of environments, wherein each environment of the plurality of environments provides different formats of transaction information;
wherein the digital receipt file is standardized for the different formats of the transaction information; converting the digital receipt file to a user reviewable file format based on a selected file format;
The Examiner provides Gotanda to teach the following limitations:
an environment of a plurality of environments, wherein each environment of the plurality of environments provides different formats of transaction information; (Gotanda teaches a system and method of collecting from various different POS locations (environments) transaction data in a non-standardized format, and converting the collected transaction data into a standardized format and storing the information for use with the electronic receipt system. See at least Gotanda Abstract and ¶ 0022)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Gotanda since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Examiner provides Calman to teach the following limitations:
wherein the digital receipt file is standardized for the different formats of the transaction information; converting the digital receipt file to a user reviewable file format based on a selected file format; (Calman teaches a system and method of receipt management that standardizes a digital receipt format for a user in the users customizable format. See at least Calman ¶ 0043)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Gotanda since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 2, Kelly discloses the following limitations:
wherein the environment is a physical store and the receipt delivery device comprises a printer positioned within the physical store. (see at least Kelly ¶¶ 0030 “party 104 may visit a money transfer location associated with a money transfer entity to initiate a money transfer transaction. In an aspect, the money transfer transaction may be initiated by an employee of the money transfer entity using the first point of entry device 130”; and 0043 “the central server 110 may generate a portable document format (PDF) copy of the receipt, and the PDF copy of the receipt may be transmitted from the central server 110 to the first point of entry device 130 via the network 160 using the communication interface 128. Upon receiving the receipt, the first point of entry device 130 may print the receipt (e.g., using a using a receipt printer included in the I/O devices 148), and an employee operating the first point of entry device 130 may provide the printed receipt to the sending party 104”)
In regards to claim 3, Kelly discloses the following limitations:
wherein receiving the transaction information corresponding to the transaction comprises receiving, from a point of sale device positioned within the physical store, the transaction information corresponding to the transaction. (see at least Kelly Abstract “receiving, by a server via a network, transaction information descriptive of a money transfer transaction initiated at a point of entry device”; and ¶ 0030 “party 104 may visit a money transfer location associated with a money transfer entity to initiate a money transfer transaction. In an aspect, the money transfer transaction may be initiated by an employee of the money transfer entity using the first point of entry device 130”)
In regards to claim 8, Kelly discloses the following limitations:
wherein receiving, from the memory, the receipt template comprises: based on the transaction information, selecting the receipt template from the memory; and receiving, from the memory, the selected receipt template. (see at least Kelly Figure 1 (120) and (126), and ¶ 0042 “In response to determining the receipt information, selecting the receipt template, and determining the service level information, the central server 110 may generate a receipt that includes the receipt information, the regulatory requirements information, and the service level information.”)
Claims 4, 7, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0086454 A1 to Kelly (“Kelly”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074675 A1 to (“Calman”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0356689 A1 to Gotanda (“Gotanda”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0165697 A1 to Anvekar (“Anvekar”)
In regards to claim 4, Kelly does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the environment is an e-commerce environment and the receipt delivery device comprises a computing device.
The Examiner provides Anvekar to teach the following limitations:
wherein the environment is an e-commerce environment and the receipt delivery device comprises a computing device. (Anvekar teaches a system and method of providing receipts in which a computing device transmits transaction information to an e-commerce provider, registers the transaction information, and provides to the computing device receipt information. See at least ¶¶ 0030-0038)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Anvekar since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 7, Kelly does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein receiving the transaction information corresponding to the transaction comprises receiving, over a network from the computing device, the transaction information corresponding to the transaction.
The Examiner provides Anvekar to teach the following limitations:
wherein receiving the transaction information corresponding to the transaction comprises receiving, over a network from the computing device, the transaction information corresponding to the transaction. (Anvekar teaches a system and method of providing receipts in which a computing device transmits transaction information to an e-commerce provider, registers the transaction information, and provides to the computing device receipt information. See at least ¶¶ 0030-0038)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Anvekar since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
In regards to claim 20, Kelly discloses receiving transaction information over a network from a computing device (see above citations) however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein: receiving the transaction information corresponding to the transaction comprises receiving, over a network from a computing device, the transaction information corresponding to the transaction; and the receipt delivery device comprises the computing device.
The Examiner provides Anvekar to teach the following limitations:
wherein: receiving the transaction information corresponding to the transaction comprises receiving, over a network from a computing device, the transaction information corresponding to the transaction; and the receipt delivery device comprises the computing device. (Anvekar teaches a system and method of providing receipts in which a computing device transmits transaction information to an server, and further provides from the server to the computing device, receipt information. See at least ¶¶ 0030-0038)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Anvekar since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0086454 A1 to Kelly (“Kelly”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074675 A1 to (“Calman”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0356689 A1 to Gotanda (“Gotanda”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0165697 A1 to Anvekar (“Anvekar”), in view of Official Notice.
In regards to claim 5, Kelly does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the e-commerce environment comprises a website.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art as evidenced by US 2019/0180275 A1 to SAFAK that an e-commerce environment can be a merchant website and operate as a point of sale, which provides transaction data. (See at least Safak ¶ 0022 “Point of Sale—A computing device or computing system configured to receive interaction with a user (e.g., a consumer, employee, etc.) for entering in transaction data, payment data, and/or other suitable types of data for the purchase of and/or payment for goods and/or services. The point of sale may be … such as in a “brick and mortar” store, or may be virtual in e-commerce (online payment) environments, such as online retailers receiving communications from customers over a network such as the Internet where the point of sale may be considered to be a merchant website.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Official Notice since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0086454 A1 to Kelly (“Kelly”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074675 A1 to (“Calman”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0356689 A1 to Gotanda (“Gotanda”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0165697 A1 to Anvekar (“Anvekar”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0036336 A1 to Goolkasian (“Goolkasian”)
In regards to claim 6, Kelly does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the e-commerce environment comprises a software application operating on a computing device.
The Examiner provides Goolkasian to teach the following limitations:
wherein the environment is an e-commerce environment and the receipt delivery device comprises a computing device. (Goolkasian teaches a system and method wherein a transaction is processed by an application in which transaction data is sent to a server. See at least ¶ 0282 “interactions between the buyers 2820 and the merchants 2816 that involve the exchange of funds (from the buyers 2820) for items (from the merchants 2816) can be referred to as “transactions.” In at least one example, the POS application 2818 can determine transaction data associated with the POS transactions. Transaction data can include payment information, which can be obtained from a reader device 2822 associated with the merchant device 2808(A), user authentication data, purchase amount information, point-of-purchase information (e.g., item(s) purchased, date of purchase, time of purchase, etc.), etc. The POS application 2818 can send transaction data to the server computing device(s) 2802”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Goolkasian since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0086454 A1 to Kelly (“Kelly”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074675 A1 to (“Calman”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0356689 A1 to Gotanda (“Gotanda”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0145148 A1 to Hammad (“Hammad”)
In regards to claim 9, Kelly discloses inserting the transaction type (see at least ¶ 0042) however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein: the transaction information comprises a transaction type; and the receipt template is selected based on the transaction type.
The Examiner provides Hammad to teach the following limitations:
wherein: the transaction information comprises a transaction type; and the receipt template is selected based on the transaction type. (Hammad teaches a system and method of providing a receipt for a transaction wherein a template is selected based on the type of transaction. See at least ¶ 0065 “Each merchant may have completely different preferences on the format for the receipt, the graphics and placement of graphics, colors, etc. Some merchants may have more than one template depending on the type of receipt or transaction (for example)”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Hammad since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0086454 A1 to Kelly (“Kelly”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074675 A1 to (“Calman”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0356689 A1 to Gotanda (“Gotanda”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0102779 A1 to Ma (“Ma”)
In regards to claim 10, Kelly does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein receiving, from the memory, the receipt template comprises based on a digital receipt request received from a computing device, receiving the receipt template from the memory, wherein the digital receipt request includes a selection of the receipt template.
The Examiner provides Ma to teach the following limitations:
wherein receiving, from the memory, the receipt template comprises based on a digital receipt request received from a computing device, receiving the receipt template from the memory, wherein the digital receipt request includes a selection of the receipt template. (Ma teaches a receipt delivery system and method wherein the receipt request causes a selection of a template/format of the delivered receipt based on the type of device the user requested from. See at least Ma claim 11 “the authentication data is indicative of a type of device of a customer of the funding subsystem that initiated the customer receipt viewing request; and the generating the customer receipt comprises generating an image of the receipt content in a format based on the type of device indicated by the authentication data.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Ma since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
Claims 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0086454 A1 to Kelly (“Kelly”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074675 A1 to (“Calman”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0356689 A1 to Gotanda (“Gotanda”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0161082 A1 to (“Nodera”)
In regards to claim 11, Kelly discloses the following limitations:
A method for generating digital receipts, the method comprising: (see at least Kelly Abstract “receiving, by a server via a network, transaction information descriptive of a money transfer transaction initiated at a point of entry device…generating, by the server, the receipt that includes the receipt information, and transmitting the receipt from the server to the point of entry device via the network.”)
receiving, from the memory, a receipt template; (see at least Kelly Figure 1 (120) and (126), and ¶ 0042 “In response to determining the receipt information, selecting the receipt template, and determining the service level information, the central server 110 may generate a receipt that includes the receipt information, the regulatory requirements information, and the service level information.”)
populating the receipt template to include at least a portion of the transaction information; (see at least Kelly ¶ 0042 “he central server 110 may generate the receipt by inserting information associated with the money transfer transaction (e.g., fees, amount of funds provided by sending party, a money transfer transaction type, a recipient associated with the money transfer transaction, the service level information, etc.) into one or more transaction detail data fields of the selected receipt template”)
generating a digital receipt file based on the at least the portion of the transaction information and the receipt template; and (see at least Kelly ¶ 0042 “the central server 110 may generate the receipt by inserting information associated with the money transfer transaction (e.g., fees, amount of funds provided by sending party, a money transfer transaction type, a recipient associated with the money transfer transaction, the service level information, etc.) into one or more transaction detail data fields of the selected receipt template”)
transmitting, over the network to the computing device, the digital receipt file or a link to the digital receipt file. (see at least Kelly ¶ 0043 “The central server 110 may transmit the receipt to the first point of entry device 130 via the network 160 using the communication interface 128. In an aspect, the central server 110 may generate a portable document format (PDF) copy of the receipt, and the PDF copy of the receipt may be transmitted from the central server 110 to the first point of entry device 130 via the network 160 using the communication interface 128.”; and ¶ 0059 “generate the second receipt (e.g., the receiving party receipt), and/or a PDF copy of the second receipt, and may initiate transmission of the second receipt or the PDF copy of the second receipt to the receiving party. In an aspect, the receiving party may be a user 102 of the electronic device 180, and the second receipt may be transmitted to the receiving party by transmitting a message (e.g., a simple message service (SMS) message, a text message, a multimedia message, etc.) to the electronic device 180.”)
Kelly does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
Wherein the transaction in formation corresponds to a transaction conducted in an environment of a plurality of environments, wherein each environment of the plurality of environments provides different formats of transaction information;
wherein the digital receipt file is standardized for the different formats of the transaction information; converting the digital receipt file to a user reviewable file format based on a selected file format;
receiving, over a network from a computing device, a digital receipt request;
receiving, from a memory, transaction information associated with the digital receipt request;
The Examiner provides Nodera to teach the following limitations:
receiving, over a network from a computing device, a digital receipt request; receiving, from a memory, transaction information associated with the digital receipt request; (Nodera teaches a system and method of providing a receipt by which transaction information is stored in a memory, and upon receiving a receipt request, the transaction information stored in memory is used to produce the receipt view. See at least Nodera Figure 4, ¶¶ 0040 and 0078)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Ma since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
The Examiner provides Gotanda to teach the following limitations:
an environment of a plurality of environments, wherein each environment of the plurality of environments provides different formats of transaction information; (Gotanda teaches a system and method of collecting from various different POS locations (environments) transaction data in a non-standardized format, and converting the collected transaction data into a standardized format and storing the information for use with the electronic receipt system. See at least Gotanda Abstract and ¶ 0022)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Gotanda since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Examiner provides Calman to teach the following limitations:
wherein the digital receipt file is standardized for the different formats of the transaction information; converting the digital receipt file to a user reviewable file format based on a selected file format; (Calman teaches a system and method of receipt management that standardizes a digital receipt format for a user in the users customizable format. See at least Calman ¶ 0043)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Gotanda since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 15, Kelly discloses the following limitations:
wherein receiving, from the memory, the receipt template comprises: based on the transaction information, selecting the receipt template from the memory; and receiving, from the memory, the selected receipt template. (see at least Kelly Figure 1 (120) and (126), and ¶ 0042 “In response to determining the receipt information, selecting the receipt template, and determining the service level information, the central server 110 may generate a receipt that includes the receipt information, the regulatory requirements information, and the service level information.”)
In regards to claim 18, Kelly does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein: the database is a first database; the memory is configured to store a second database configured to store transaction information associated with a plurality of transactions; and receiving transaction information corresponding to the transaction comprises receiving, from the second database, the transaction information corresponding to the transaction.
The Examiner provides Nodera to teach the following limitations:
wherein: the database is a first database; the memory is configured to store a second database configured to store transaction information associated with a plurality of transactions; and receiving transaction information corresponding to the transaction comprises receiving, from the second database, the transaction information corresponding to the transaction. (Nodera teaches a system and method of providing a receipt by which transaction information is stored in a memory, and upon receiving a receipt request, the transaction information stored in memory is used to produce the receipt view. See at least Nodera Figure 4, ¶¶ 0040 and 0078)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Ma since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0086454 A1 to Kelly (“Kelly”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074675 A1 to (“Calman”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0356689 A1 to Gotanda (“Gotanda”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0161082 A1 to (“Nodera”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0102779 A1 to Ma (“Ma”)
In regards to claims 12 and 13, Kelly discloses selecting from a memory a receipt template and providing the receipt in that template (see above citations), however, does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein: the digital receipt request comprises a selected file format; and receiving, from the memory, the receipt template comprises receiving, from the memory, the selected receipt template. wherein: the digital receipt request comprises a selected file format; and generating the digital receipt file comprises generating the digital receipt file in the selected file format.
The Examiner provides Ma to teach the following limitations:
wherein: the digital receipt request comprises a selected file format; and receiving, from the memory, the receipt template comprises receiving, from the memory, the selected receipt template. wherein: the digital receipt request comprises a selected file format; and generating the digital receipt file comprises generating the digital receipt file in the selected file format. (Ma teaches a receipt delivery system and method wherein the receipt request causes a selection of a template/format of the delivered receipt based on the type of device the user requested from. See at least Ma claim 11 “the authentication data is indicative of a type of device of a customer of the funding subsystem that initiated the customer receipt viewing request; and the generating the customer receipt comprises generating an image of the receipt content in a format based on the type of device indicated by the authentication data.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Ma since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0086454 A1 to Kelly (“Kelly”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074675 A1 to (“Calman”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0356689 A1 to Gotanda (“Gotanda”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0161082 A1 to (“Nodera”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0102779 A1 to Ma (“Ma”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0095732 A1 to Murofushi (“Murofushi”)
In regards to claim 14, Kelly does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein: the digital receipt request comprises one or more search terms; and receiving, from the memory, the transaction information associated with the digital receipt request comprises receiving, from the memory, transaction information associated with a search for transaction information based on the one or more search terms.
The Examiner provides Murofushi to teach the following limitations:
wherein: the digital receipt request comprises one or more search terms; and receiving, from the memory, the transaction information associated with the digital receipt request comprises receiving, from the memory, transaction information associated with a search for transaction information based on the one or more search terms. (Murofushi teaches a system and method of providing receipt and transaction information based on a user request for a receipt based on search information such as a specific date. See at least Figure 7 and ¶¶ 0082-0083)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Ma since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
In regards to claim 16, Kelly does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein: the digital receipt request identifies a transaction associated with the transaction information; and receiving, from the memory, the transaction information associated with the digital receipt request comprises receiving, from the memory, the transaction information associated with the identified transaction.
The Examiner provides Murofushi to teach the following limitations:
wherein: the digital receipt request identifies a transaction associated with the transaction information; and receiving, from the memory, the transaction information associated with the digital receipt request comprises receiving, from the memory, the transaction information associated with the identified transaction. (Murofushi teaches a system and method of providing receipt and transaction information based on a user request for a receipt based on search information such as a specific date. See at least Figure 7 and ¶¶ 0082-0083)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Ma since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0086454 A1 to Kelly (“Kelly”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074675 A1 to (“Calman”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0356689 A1 to Gotanda (“Gotanda”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0276640 A1 to Kohli (“Kohli”)
In regards to claim 19, Kelly discloses the following limitations:
wherein: the memory is configured to store user profiles; and (Kelly discloses storing user profiles. See at least Kelly ¶ 0018)
Kelly does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
receiving, from the database, the receipt template comprises receiving, from the database, the receipt template based on a user profile associated with a user that executed the transaction.
The Examiner provides Kohli to teach the following limitations:
receiving, from the database, the receipt template comprises receiving, from the database, the receipt template based on a user profile associated with a user that executed the transaction. (Kohli teaches a system and method by which a receipt is customized based on a user profile. See at least Kohli ¶ 0024 “The DRG computing device re-formats the electronic receipt according to the preferences stored in the user profile and generates a dynamic, customized receipt.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Kelly the teachings of Ma since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627