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 1-20 filed July 29, 2024 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 1-17 are directed to a system, and claims 18-20 are directed to a method, all of which are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1, 11, and 18 recite an abstract idea of electronic receipt dispensing.
The independent claims 1, 11, and 18 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
…
…
…
…
…
receive a commodity code of an item being registered for purchase in a sales transaction at the point-of-sale terminal and register the item in transaction data for the sales transaction;
receive a member code for a customer in the sales transaction;
generate printing data for printing a transaction receipt for the sales transaction on the printer, the transaction receipt being based on the transaction data for the sales transaction;
and if the received member code indicates the customer is a member of an electronic receipt service, generate linkage data from the printing data, the linkage data permitting an electronic receipt to be generated for the sales transaction.
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, electronic receipt dispensing 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 electronic receipt dispensing with generally recited computer elements such as a point-of-sale terminal (POS), printer, communication interface, processor, first/second network, and transaction system server, 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 electronic receipt dispensing. 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 point-of-sale terminal (POS), printer, communication interface, processor, first/second network, and transaction system server, 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 and 12, although these claims recite a generally recited electronic receipt server, transaction system server, and second network, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of electronic receipt dispensing, 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 3 and 13, although these claims recite a generally recited database and transaction system server, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of electronic receipt dispensing, 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 4, although this claim recites a generally recited POS terminal and tablet terminal, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of electronic receipt dispensing, 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 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of electronic receipt dispensing, 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 7, although this claim recites a generally recited POS terminal and imaging unit, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of electronic receipt dispensing, 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 8, although this claim recites a generally recited imaging unit, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of electronic receipt dispensing, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
16. Regarding dependent claims 9 and 16, although these claims recite a generally recited transaction system server, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of electronic receipt dispensing, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
17. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
21. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argue et al (US 2014/0172604) in view of Matsumoto (US 2015/0356522).
22. Re Claims 1, 11, 18: Argue discloses comprising:
a point-of-sale terminal in a store (see [0006], Fig. 1 point of sale);
a printer in the store for printing transaction receipts (see [0018] printer);
a communication interface connected to a point-of-sale terminal via a first network (see [0033] accounting interface);
a processor (see [0026] processor);
a transaction system server connected to the point-of-sale terminal via a first network and configured to (see [0021] receipt management server):
receive a commodity code of an item being registered for purchase in a sales transaction at the point-of-sale terminal and register the item in transaction data for the sales transaction (see [0021, 0044] QR code and machine readable code);
receive a member code for a customer in the sales transaction (see [0045] QR code to identify customer account);
generate printing data for printing a transaction receipt for the sales transaction on the printer, the transaction receipt being based on the transaction data for the sales transaction (see [0055, 0058] generating electronic receipt).
However, Argue fails to explicitly disclose the following. Meanwhile, Matsumoto teaches:
and if the received member code indicates the customer is a member of an electronic receipt service, generate linkage data from the printing data, the linkage data permitting an electronic receipt to be generated for the sales transaction (see [0039] member code of customer correlated with receipt data).
From the teaching of Matsumoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Argue’s reprinting a paper receipt with Matsumoto’s teaching of generating an electronic receipt in order for “… generating electronic receipt displays… (see Matsumoto [0002]).”
23. Re Claims 2, 12: However, Argue fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Matsumoto further teaches comprising: an electronic receipt server connected to the transaction system server via a second network and configured to generate an electronic receipt for the sales transaction from the linkage data (see [0039] member code of customer correlated with receipt data).
From the teaching of Matsumoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Argue’s reprinting a paper receipt with Matsumoto’s teaching of generating an electronic receipt in order for “… generating electronic receipt displays… (see Matsumoto [0002]).”
24. Re Claims 3, 13: Argue discloses further comprising: a database accessible by the transaction system server and storing linkage data, a commodity master associating commodity
information to commodity codes, a store member table associating member codes to member information, and a transaction information table associating transaction IDs to transaction data (see [0036-0040] databases).
25. Re Claim 4: Argue discloses wherein the point-of-sale terminal is a tablet terminal (see [0044] tablet).
26. Re Claims 6, 15, 19: However, Argue fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Matsumoto teaches wherein the transaction system server is further configured to:
receive a request for an electronic receipt for a previous sales transaction;
extract the transaction data for the previous sales transaction from a database storing transaction data and generate linkage data based on the extracted transaction data;
and output the linkage data to an electronic receipt server of the electronic receipt service (see [0039] member code of customer correlated with receipt data).
From the teaching of Matsumoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Argue’s reprinting a paper receipt with Matsumoto’s teaching of generating an electronic receipt in order for “… generating electronic receipt displays… (see Matsumoto [0002]).”
27. Re Claim 7: Argue discloses wherein the point-of-sale terminal includes an imaging unit configured to read the commodity code of the item being registered in the sale transaction (see [0030] scanner).
28. Re Claim 8: Argue discloses wherein the imaging unit is further configured to read the member code (see [0044] scanning of QR code).
29. Re Claims 9, 16: However, Argue fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Matsumoto teaches wherein the transaction system server is further configured to: process settlement of the sales transaction based on the transaction data (see [0045] settling transaction). From the teaching of Matsumoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Argue’s reprinting a paper receipt with Matsumoto’s teaching of generating an electronic receipt in order for “… generating electronic receipt displays… (see Matsumoto [0002]).”
30. Re Claims 10, 17: However, Argue fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Matsumoto teaches wherein the linkage data includes information to format the electronic receipt to match formatting of the printed transaction receipt (see [0027] data format of receipt). From the teaching of Matsumoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Argue’s reprinting a paper receipt with Matsumoto’s teaching of generating an electronic receipt in order for “… generating electronic receipt displays… (see Matsumoto [0002]).”
31. Claims 5, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argue et al (US 2014/0172604) in view of Matsumoto (US 2015/0356522) in further view of Yokoyama (US 2014/0092415).
32. Re Claims 5, 14, 20: However, Argue and Matsumoto fail to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Yokoyama teaches wherein the linkage data is structured data with HTML tags (see [0060, 0069, 0076] HTML tags). From the teaching of Yokoyama, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Argue’s reprinting a paper receipt with Matsumoto’s teaching of generating an electronic receipt and further with Yokoyama’s teaching of HTML tags in order for “… to analyze sales information and customer purchasing activity… (see Yokoyama Abstract).”
Examiner Notes
33. The Examiner suggests incorporating dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, and 9-10 together into the independent claims. 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.
Conclusion
34. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Turow (The Customized Store, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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