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
This is in reply to communication filed on 06/03/2026.
Claims 1-8 have been amended.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 06/03/2026:
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101” in page 8.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims provide a practical application because they reduce waste and permitted a user to review a receipt on a mobile device even though the receipt originates from print data suitable for a printer, see applicant Remakes, page 8.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the asserted benefits describe the result or purpose of the claimed abstract idea, rather than an improvement to computer, printer, mobile-device, or communication technology. The claims remain directed to managing a commercial transaction by determining how a customer is to receive a receipt, generating receipt information, and providing the receipt in the selected form, which constitutes a commercial/legal interaction and managing personal behavior or relationships/interactions between people. The associated receiving, transmitting, displaying, selecting, determining, and generating operations also encompass the collection, evaluation, and communication of information, including operations that may be performed as mental processes.
The recited POS terminal, receipt printer, information processing device, user interface terminal, and mobile device, merely implement these functions as tools and do not impose a meaningful technological limitation that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Reducing paper use and allowing convenient mobile review are benefits flowing from choosing electronic rather than printed receipt delivery, not improvement to the functioning of the recited technology itself.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims amount to an improvement over prior art techniques for printing a receipt based on collected customer preferences, such an improvement would be considered, at most, an improvement confined within the abstract idea itself, which is not enough to confer eligibility on the claim. For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and examiner maintain the 101 rejection.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103” in pages 9-12.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response, the Examiner first emphasizes that the newly amended limitations are narrower in scope than the features previously presented in claims 1, 4, 5 and 7. Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended limitations has been considered, however the argument is primarily raised in support of the amendments to independent claims 1, 4, 5 and 7, and therefore is believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth below, which incorporates new references, Ito et al. (US 20150242169 A1, hereinafter “Ito”) further in view of Seifert et al. (US 20070069013 A1, hereinafter “Seifert”) to teach the new limitations of claims 1, 4, 5 and 7. Accordingly, the amendment and supporting arguments are believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection set forth under §103 below.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations in view of the prior art and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations in view of the prior art will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the received second selection” in page 6, line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required, such as (a received second selection).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-3 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claim 4 recites a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 5-6 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 7-8 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Independent claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 recite , at a high level, obtaining information associated with a commercial transaction, presenting or determining a customer’s receipt option, receiving information indicative of a customer’s selection or preference for a receipt, determining whether an electronic receipt was selected or is to be provided, generating receipt information based on transaction/printing data, and providing the resulting receipt to the customer. for example, claim 1 displays a plurality of receipt options, receives selection information indicating selection of an electronic receipt, determines that the electronic receipt was selected, generates electronic receipt information based on printing data, and transmits the electronic receipt information to a mobile device. Claims 4, 5, and 7 recite substantially corresponding operations using customer identification information, receipt selections, printing data, and/or requests form the mobile device.
1) The claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 recite a certain method of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal interactions, because they concern managing a commercial transaction by determining and implementing the manner in which a customer’s transaction receipt is provided. The limitations involving presenting receipt options, receiving a customer’s selection or using customer information to determine a receipt preference, and providing the selected/preferred form of receipt additionally concern managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, namely managing the interaction between a merchant and customer according to the customer’s selection or preference.
2) Additionally, the independent claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 recite a mental process, including observing or evaluating information and making a judgment or determination therefrom. In particular, determining from received selection information that an electronic or paper receipt was selected, and determining from customer identification information a preferred receipt type, constitute evaluations and determinations that, apart from the recited computer implementation, can be performed through human observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Therefore, claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: a receipt printer including a fourth controller; an information processing device including a fifth controller; point-of sale terminal including a first controller; a user interface terminal including a second controller; and a mobile device including a third controller,
Claim 4: a receipt printer including a fourth controller; an information processing device including a fifth controller; the receipt printer is configured to communicate with a POS terminal, the information processing device is configured to communicate with the receipt printer, a user interface terminal, and a mobile device,
Claim 5: a receipt printer including a fourth controller; and an information processing device including a fifth controller, the receipt printer is configured to communicate with a POS terminal, the information processing device is configured to communicate with the receipt printer, a user interface terminal, and a mobile device,
Claim 7: a receipt system including a receipt printer and an information processing device, the receipt printer communicates with a POS terminal, and the information processing device communicate with the receipt printer, and a user interface terminal,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims apply the abstract commercial/customer-interaction process and/ or mental process using computer and communication components rather than reciting an improvement to the operation of those components or another technological field. Nor do the claims require a particular technological solution to a technological problem. The claimed arrangement facilitates the selection, generation, and delivery of a paper or electronic receipt, but the improvement described by the claim language is principally to how the commercial interaction with the customer is administered, rather than to the underlying operation of the POS terminal, receipt printer, information processing device, user interface terminal, or mobile device.
Accordingly, claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 are directed to abstract idea as the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements provide the technological environment through which the abstract receipt-management process is performed, including receiving and transmitting printing data, displaying receipt options, receiving selection information, generating electronic receipt information, transmitting the information to a mobile device, and, where applicable, printing a paper receipt. The claims do not recite an additional element or combination that transforms the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of the identified exceptions. Instead, the claimed components perform their respective data-processing, communication, display, and printing functions in furtherance of the abstract commercial/customer-interaction and information-evaluation processes.
Accordingly, claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea and is therefore not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-3, 6 and 8 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-3, 6 and 8 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claim 2: the second controller of the user interface device, the information processing device, the fifth controller of the information processing device, the fourth controller of the receipt printer,
Claim 3: the first controller of the POS terminal, the receipt printer, the fourth controller of the receipt printer, the information processing device, the fifth controller of the information processing device,
Claim 6: the fifth controller of the information processing device, the fourth controller of the receipt printer,
Claim 8: the information processing device, the receipt printer,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of printing/issuing receipts, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-8, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over NAKADA SHUNJI (Japanese publication no. JP2002342836A, hereinafter “NAKADA”) in view of Ito et al. (US 20150242169 A1, hereinafter “Ito”) further in view of Seifert et al. (US 20070069013 A1, hereinafter “Seifert”).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5 and 7. NAKADA discloses a settlement system comprising: (NAKADA discloses a product sales data processing system 1 which is a product sales data processing device roughly includes a plurality of POS (Point of Sales) terminals 2 and these POS terminals 2 connected to a LAN 3, [0036])
a receipt printer including a fourth controller; (NAKADA discloses a printer 19 is connected to the POS control unit 14, see [0041])
an information processing device including a fifth controller; (NAKADA discloses a store computer 4 that is centrally managed by connecting with a store computer 4 and a server computer (hereinafter referred to as a member server) 7, see [0036], store computer 4 has a control unit 20 having a computer configuration including a CPU, see [0042])
a first terminal device including a first controller; a point-of-sale (POS) terminal including a first controller; (NAKADA discloses a product sales data processing system 1 which is a product sales data processing device roughly includes a plurality of POS (Point of Sales) terminals 2 and these POS terminals 2 connected to a LAN 3, [0036], The POS terminal 2 includes a POS control unit 14 having a computer configuration including a CPU (Central Processing Unit), see [0040])
a user interface terminal including a second controller; and (NAKADA discloses POS terminal 2 is arranged at a settlement place and is used by a cashier for sales processing, and has a configuration and include a display 11, see [0037])
the first controller of the POS terminal being configured to generate printing data and transmit the printing data to the receipt printer, (NAKADA discloses the POS terminal 2 receives the product name, unit price, etc. from the store computer 4, and based on the inquired product code and the received product name, unit price, etc., registration by department, display on the display unit 11, and printer 19. Then, the data is printed out, see [0043] , a printer 19 is connected to the POS control unit 14, The printer 19 is a receipt/journal printer built in the main body 8 of the POS terminal 2, see [0041])
the fourth controller of the receipt printer being configured to transmit the received printing data to the information processing device, (NAKADA discloses then, the data is printed out and the registered sales data is transmitted to the store computer 4. Further, on the store computer 4 side to which the sales registration data is transmitted from the POS terminal 2, the sales registration data from the POS terminal 2 is accumulated in the sales file F2, see [0043])
NAKADA discloses POS terminal 2 includes a POS control unit 14 having a computer configuration including a CPU, and a printer 19 is connected to the POS control unit 14. The printer 19 is a receipt/journal printer built in the main body 8 of the POS terminal 2. See [0041]. The POS terminal registers purchased products and displays the details on display unit 11 and printer 19, then the registered sale data is transmitted to a store computer 4 from the POS terminal through communication via bus 16, see [0041] and [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make POS terminal and receipt printer separable while retaining the same respective function, with communication between the separated device replacing the internal bus commination. Such separation merely changes the physical arrangement while predictable preserving the same POS data-generation, receipt-printing function, and transmitting data to an external device as needed. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C), Making Separable, citing In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
NAKADA substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, NAKADA fails to explicitly disclose the “the fifth controller of the information processing device being configured to: 1) generate image data for display on the user interface terminal based on the received printing data, and 2) transmit the image data to the user interface terminal”. However, Ito teaches:
the fifth controller of the information processing device being configured to:
1) generate image data for display on the user interface terminal based on the received printing data, and 2) transmit the image data to the user interface terminal, (Ito teaches the control server 10 processes the print data based on the result of analyzing the print data to generate processed print data, and sends the processed print data to the second printer 12b, [0052], The second connection unit 55 then sends the received second receipt print data by the second WebSocket connection CT2 to the second printer 12 b (step SE9), see [0192])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify NAKADA to include generate image data for display on a user interface based on the received printing data, and transmit the image data to the user interface terminal, as taught by Ito, where this would be performed in order to produce printouts with different layouts, or print data for producing printouts with specific styling applied. See Ito [0015].
The combination of NAKADA in view of Ito substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fail to explicitly disclose the “a mobile device including a third controller, the second controller of the user interface terminal configured to 1) display the received image data including a plurality of receipt options, and 2) when the electronic receipt is selected, transmit first selection information indicating selection of an electronic receipt to the information processing device, and the fifth controller of the information processing device being further configured to: 1) determine, based on the received first selection information, that the electronic receipt was selected, 2) generate electronic receipt information based on the printing data and configured to be displayable on a mobile device, and transmit the electronic receipt information to the mobile device in response to receiving an electronic receipt request from the mobile device”. However, Seifert teaches
a mobile device including a third controller, the second controller of the user interface terminal (Seifert teaches the receipting system 100 may also include a display screen 130. The display screen 130 may be capable of communicating with the processor 120 and/or the input device 125. In certain embodiments, the input device 125 and the display screen 130 may comprise a single device, such as a touch-screen or the like. In certain aspects, the display screen 130 may be used to provide a visual receipt to the customer, see [0032]) configured to
1) display the received image data including a plurality of receipt options, and (Seifert teaches the display screen 130 may display the receipting options available to the customer and provide instructions for requesting one or more of the different receipting options he display screen 130 may display the receipting options available to the customer and provide instructions for requesting one or more of the different receipting options, see [0032], a display 200 that may be presented on display screen 130. Display 200 presents the customer with various options for receiving a receipt for a transaction, see [0041])
2) when the electronic receipt is selected, transmit first selection information indicating selection of an electronic receipt to the information processing device, and (Seifert teaches the customer may select from options such as sending the receipt to an e-mail address, sending the receipt to a mobile device, downloading the receipt to a smart card, or downloading the receipt to a portable device, The electronic copy of the receipt may be delivered in a variety of formats, such as a pdf document, a Word& document, a spreadsheet, a TIFF image file format, a JPEG or the like, see [0041-0042])
the fifth controller of the information processing device (Seifert teaches a host computer, see [0050] and a processor, see [0051]) being further configured to:
1) determine, based on the received first selection information (Seifert teaches the customer may request downloading of the electronic copy of the receipt to a portable device and the customer may select the submit icon 212 when the customer's portable device is configured to receive the electronic copy of the receipt, [0044]), that the electronic receipt was selected, (Seifert teaches in step 320 a request for an electronic receipt for the transaction transacted at the POS device is received, request may be made by the customer entering the request into an input device, by a host computer sending a request for an electronic receipt for the transaction, see [0050])
2) generate electronic receipt information based on the printing data and configured to be displayable on a mobile device, and (Seifert teaches step 330 a processor configures the transaction data for delivery according to the request, see [0051]) transmit the electronic receipt information to the mobile device in response to receiving an electronic receipt request from the mobile device. (Seifert teaches step 340, the electronic receipt is transmitted to the destination or destinations selected by the customer, such as transmitting an electronic signal and/or the like that may be received by a portable device associated with the customer, see [0052])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify NAKADA to include a mobile device, and user interface terminal displays the received image data including a plurality of receipt options, and when the electronic receipt is selected, transmit first selection information indicating selection of an electronic receipt to the information processing device, and the information processing device further determine, based on the received first selection information, that the electronic receipt was selected, and generate electronic receipt information based on the printing data and displayable on a mobile device, and transmit the electronic receipt information to the mobile device in response to receiving an electronic receipt request from the mobile device, as taught by Seifert, where this would be performed in order to provide electronic receipts that can be stored in a secure, immutable, and audit-ready format that is not susceptible to easy alteration, duplication, or loss, to meet both compliance and fraud-prevention standards. See Seifert [0005].
Regarding claim 2. The combination of NAKADA in view of Ito further in view of Seifert discloses the settlement system according to claim 1, wherein
the fifth controller of the information processing device is further configured to determine, based on the received second selection information, that the paper receipt option was selected and transmit a printing request to the receipt printer, and the fourth controller of the receipt printer is configured to print the printing data based on the received printing request. (NAKADA discloses when the “receipt issue format No.” received from the member server 7 is “1”, the transaction data including the accumulated point value information is printed on the printing paper by the printer 19 at the standard pitch and the standard character size. Then, a standard receipt (normal receipt) R1 as shown in FIG. 10 is issued, see [0056])
The combination of NAKADA in view of Ito substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fail to explicitly disclose the “the plurality of receipt options includes an option for a paper receipt and an option for the electronic receipt, the second controller of the user interface terminal is further configured to transmit second selection information indicating selection of the paper receipt option to the information processing apparatus”. However, Seifert teaches:
the plurality of receipt options includes an option for a paper receipt and an option for the electronic receipt, the second controller of the user interface terminal is further configured to transmit second selection information indicating selection of the paper receipt option to the information processing apparatus, (Seifert teaches a manual paper receipt selection as in a display 200 that may be presented on display screen 130. Display 200 presents the customer with various options for receiving a receipt for a transaction. Associated with each option is an icon 202 that may be touched to select the given option, the customer may select from options such as receiving a paper receipt that is printed using printer 150, see [0041-0042])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify NAKADA to include the plurality of receipt options includes an option for a paper receipt and an option for the electronic receipt, the second controller of the user interface terminal is further configured to transmit second selection information indicating selection of the paper receipt option to the information processing apparatus, as taught by Seifert, where this would be performed in order to provide electronic receipts that can be stored in a secure, immutable, and audit-ready format that is not susceptible to easy alteration, duplication, or loss, to meet both compliance and fraud-prevention standards. See Seifert [0005].
Regarding claim 3. The combination of NAKADA in view of Ito further in view of Seifert discloses the settlement system according to claim 1, wherein the first controller of the POS terminal is further configured to acquire customer identification information and transmit the customer identification information to the receipt printer, the fourth controller of the receipt printer is further configured to transmit the received customer identification information to the information processing device, and (NAKADA discloses the POS terminal 2 is connected to an IC card reader/writer 12 that accepts insertion of a member card C, which is an IC card, and exchanges data with the member card C, the POS terminal 2 is connected to an IC card reader/writer 12 that accepts insertion of a member card C, which is an IC card, and exchanges data with the member card C, see [0038])
the fifth controller of the information processing device is further configured to: (NAKADA discloses member server 7 stores the data relating to the receipt issuance format selection in association with the membership code that constitutes the customer information of the membership card C, in a receipt selection file F4, see [0044-0045])
1) determine, based on the received customer identification information, a preferred receipt type associated with a customer, and (NAKADA discloses the receipt selection file F4 is searched based on the inquired member code, and the data relating to the receipt issuing format selection (“receipt issuing format No.”) is read (step S23), see [0052])
2) control generation the electronic receipt information based on the determined preferred receipt type. (NAKADA discloses then, the process proceeds to step S8 to execute the receipt issuing process. Here, the function of the receipt issuing means is executed. The receipt issuing process is executed based on the “receipt issuing format number” received from the member server 7, wherein When the “receipt issue format No.” received from the member server 7 is “1”, the transaction data including the accumulated point value information is printed on the printing paper by the printer 19 at the standard pitch and the standard character size. Then, a standard receipt (normal receipt) R1 as shown in FIG. 10 is issued, [0055-0056])
Regarding claims 6 and 8. The combination of NAKADA in view of Ito further in view of Seifert discloses the receipt system according to claim 5, wherein
the fifth controller of the information processing device is further configured to:
1) determine, based on the received second selection information, that a paper receipt was selected, and 2) transmit a printing request to the receipt printer, and the fourth controller of the receipt printer configured to print the printing data based on the received printing request.
(NAKADA discloses the process proceeds to step S8 to execute the receipt issuing process. Here, the function of the receipt issuing means is executed. The receipt issuing process is executed based on the “receipt issuing format number” received from the member server 7, wherein When the “receipt issue format No.” received from the member server 7 is “1”, the transaction data including the accumulated point value information is printed on the printing paper by the printer 19 at the standard pitch and the standard character size. Then, a standard receipt (normal receipt) R1 as shown in FIG. 10 is issued, [0055-0056])
The combination of NAKADA in view of Ito substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fail to explicitly disclose the “the image data includes a plurality of receipt options including an option for a paper receipt and an option for the electronic receipt”. However, Seifert teaches
the image data includes a plurality of receipt options including an option for a paper receipt and an option for the electronic receipt; (Seifert teaches display 200 that may be presented on display screen 130. Display 200 presents the customer with various options for receiving a receipt for a transaction. Associated with each option is an icon 202 that may be touched to select the given option, he customer may select from options such as receiving a paper receipt that is printed using printer 150, see [0041-0042], and Figs. 2 and 5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify NAKADA to include the image data includes a plurality of receipt options including an option for a paper receipt and an option for the electronic receipt, as taught by Seifert, where this would be performed in order to provide electronic receipts that can be stored in a secure, immutable, and audit-ready format that is not susceptible to easy alteration, duplication, or loss, to meet both compliance and fraud-prevention standards. See Seifert [0005].
Conclusion
1. 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.
2. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights