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 action is in reply to the communications filed on 11/06/2025.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11-13, 16, and 19-20 are amended.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 11/06/2025, have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully address in the following final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 8-9 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive and are moot in view of the amended rejection that may be found starting on page 4 of this final office action.
On pages 8-9 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the amended claims do not recite mental processes and that the claims reflect a tangible improvement to related-art systems concerning merchandise return support. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended independent claims do not recite mental processes and that the additional elements reflect a technical improvement to a technological environment.
As currently drafted, the independent claims recite features for collecting information (i.e., collecting image data), analyzing information (i.e., identifying a state of an item based on the image, determining a response regarding an attempt to return an item based on particular conditions), and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis (i.e., outputting a notification indicating a response to the return attempt) in a manner that is analogous to human mental work. The independent claims further recite additional elements that merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions to apply the mental processes. In particular, the amended claims introduce steps for acquiring information over a network, outputting information over a network, and storing information on a computer. These additional elements merely describe the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea. The Examiner notes, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 9-12 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the amended § 103 rejection that may be found starting on page 18 of this final office action.
On pages 9-12 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the prior art of record, namely Jaff and Wicks, do not disclose the particular amended features of the amended independent claims. In view of the amendments the independent claims, the Examiner has set forth an amended § 103 rejection of the independent claims that may be found starting on page 18 herein.
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, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1 and 3-8 are directed to a machine (“a system”), claims 9 and 11-15 are directed to a machine (“a server”), and claims 16-17, and 19-20 are directed to a process (“a method”), Thus, claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Acquire […] image data for a merchandise item that a user is attempting to return;
Identify a state of the merchandise item based on the image data;
Determine a response regarding the attempt to return the merchandise item based on the identified state of the merchandise item and the stored return conditions relating to the state of the merchandise item; and
Output […] a notification to […] the user indicating the response regarding the attempt to return the merchandise item, wherein the […] determines the response by selecting a response from among options including a response indicating the merchandise item is not returnable, a response indicating that the merchandise item is returnable, and a response indicating that the merchandise item is not returnable but a promotion is available to the user.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3-8, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of planning and facilitating business transactions/relations (i.e., steps for returning a merchandise item previously purchased by a customer from a store based on an analysis of identified item conditions and return conditions, and outputting a response to a user’s attempt to return the item) - which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0016]-¶[0017]. Furthermore, the limitations identified above recite concepts of collecting information, observation, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of the information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “return support server storing return conditions”, “user terminal”, and steps for acquiring and outputting information via a communication network (“acquire, across a communication network from a user terminal…”, “output, across the communication network, a notification to the user terminal…”). The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 9, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Acquire […] image data from the user […] for a merchandise item that a user is attempting to return;
Identify a state of the merchandise item based on the image data;
Determine a response regarding the attempt to return the merchandise item based on the identified state of the merchandise item and the stored return conditions relating to the state of the merchandise item; and
Output a notification to the user […] indicating the response regarding the attempt to return the merchandise item, wherein the […] determines the response by selecting a response from among options including a response indicating the merchandise item is not returnable, a response indicating that the merchandise item is returnable, and a response indicating that the merchandise item is not returnable but a promotion is available to the user.
Therefore, claims 9 and 11-15, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 9 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of planning and facilitating business transactions/relations (i.e., steps for returning a merchandise item previously purchased by a customer from a store based on an analysis of identified item conditions and return conditions, and outputting a response to a user’s attempt to return the item) - which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0016]-¶ [0017]. Furthermore, the limitations identified above recite concepts of collecting information, observation, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of the information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “merchandise return support server”, “communication interface connectable to a user terminal via a network”, “storage device storing return conditions”, “processor”, “user terminal”, and steps for acquiring and outputting information via a network (“acquire, via the network, image data from the user terminal…”, “output a notification to the user terminal…”). The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 16, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Acquiring […] image data for a merchandise item that a user is attempting to return;
Identifying […] a state of the merchandise item based on the image data;
Determining […] a response regarding the attempt to return the merchandise item based on the identified state of the merchandise item and return conditions relating to the state of the merchandise item […]; and
Outputting […] a notification to […] the user […] indicating the response regarding the attempt to return the merchandise item, wherein […] determines the response by selecting a response from among options including a response indicating the merchandise item is not returnable, a response indicating that the merchandise item is returnable, and a response indicating that the merchandise item is not returnable but a promotion is available to the user.
Therefore, claims 16 and 17, 19-20, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 9 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of planning and facilitating business transactions/relations (i.e., steps for returning a merchandise item previously purchased by a customer from a store based on an analysis of identified item conditions and return conditions, and outputting a response to a user’s attempt to return the item)- which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0016]-¶ [0017]. Furthermore, the limitations identified above recite concepts of collecting information, observation, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of the information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “return support server”, “terminal”, steps for acquiring and outputting information via a network (“acquiring, at a return support server across a communication network from a user terminal, image data…”, “outputting, from the return support server, a notification to the user terminal…”), and steps for storing information in a server (“return conditions […] stored on the return support server”). The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 further describes the contents of the response, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 4 further describes the selected responses regarding the attempt to return the merchandise item, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 5 further describes collecting information from a user and selecting a response based on the collected information. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces the additional elements of steps wherein “the return support server further acquires a user estimation of the state of the merchandise item […] from the terminal of the user”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 6 further describes collecting information about a transaction and making a determination based on the collected information. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces the additional elements of steps wherein “the return support server attempts to acquire details about a transaction […]”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 7 recites the same abstract idea as claims 1 and 6, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “return support server includ[ing] a storage device” and steps “to acquire details about the transaction from the storage”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for storing/retrieving information from a memory (“wherein the return support server includes a storage device and attempts to acquire details about the transaction from the storage device”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for storing/retrieving information from a memory amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for storing/retrieving information from a memory fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “store terminal” and steps wherein “the return support server further outputs the notification to the store terminal”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network (“the return support server further outputs the notification to the store terminal“). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 further describes the contents of the response, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 9 from which the claim depends.
Claim 12 further describes the selected responses regarding the attempt to return the merchandise item, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 9 from which the claim depends.
Claim 13 further describes collecting information from a user and selecting a response based on the collected information. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces the additional elements of steps wherein “the processor further acquires a user estimation of the state of the merchandise item […] from the terminal of the user”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 14 further describes collecting information about a transaction and making a determination based on the collected information. Thus, the claim further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces the additional elements of steps wherein “the processor attempts to acquire details about a transaction […] from the storage device”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for storing/retrieving information from a memory (“the processor attempts to acquire details about a transaction […] from the storage device”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for storing/retrieving information from a memory amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for storing/retrieving information from a memory fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites the same abstract idea as claim 9, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “store terminal” and steps wherein “the processor is further configured to output the notification to a store terminal via the network”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network (“the processor is further configured to output the notification to a store terminal via the network“). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 recites the same abstract idea as claim 16, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “store terminal” and steps for “outputting the notification to a store terminal”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network (“outputting the notification to a store terminal“). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18 further describes the selected responses regarding the attempt to return the merchandise item, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 16 from which the claim depends.
Claim 19 further describes the contents of the response, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 16 from which the claim depends.
Claim 20 further describes the selected responses regarding the attempt to return the merchandise item, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 16 from which the claim depends.
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 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, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jaff et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,697,548B1, hereafter known as Jaff, in view of Hammond et al. U.S. Publication No. 2006/0235746, hereafter known as Hammond.
Claim 1: Jaff teaches the following:
A return support server storing return conditions and configured to: acquire, across a communication network from a user terminal, image data for a merchandise item that a user is attempting to return; Identify a state of the merchandise item based on the image data; (col. 7, lines 9-16: the return management computer system is arranged in a cluster of servers that hosts the application. The application handles requests from users and serves web pages); (col. 9, lines 33-40: memory includes operating system, data stores, and various programs/modules, including a user module, item analysis module, and return module); (col. 12: 41-45: user module may identify return policies of item providers and constraints associated with allowing an item to be returned); (col 1, lines 29-32: Fig 2. Illustrates a return management computer and user devices connected via one or more networks); (col. 12, lines 62-65: the request to return an item may not be stated as a request, but rather as providing an image of the item); (col. 17, lines 35-39: the return management computer may determine, if the received image identifies that that item is damaged, that the user that provided the image is requesting to return the item independent of receiving a request to return the item); (col. 17, lines 50-53: the return workflow may be initiated for the item if it is determined that the user that provided the image is requesting to return the item).
Determine a response regarding the attempt to return the merchandise item based on the identified state of the merchandise item and the stored return conditions relating to the state of the merchandise item; (col. 12, lines 62-65: the request to return an item may not be stated as a request, but rather as receiving an image of the item from the user); (col. 11, lines 6-18: item analysis module may compare the received image of the item to a stock image of the item, where the stock image depicts the item as new/unused); (col. 5, lines 1-11: the system may determine that the item is returnable by satisfying a constraint. A constraint may include constraints imposed by the item provider (e.g., returns are required in the original packaging)); (col. 10, lines 20-25: an item analysis module may be used to determine whether the item can be returned based on the constraints/rules/policies associated with an item provider); (col. 12: 41-45: user module may identify return policies of item providers and constraints associated with allowing the item to be returned).
Output, across the communication network, a notification to the user terminal indicating the response regarding the attempt to return the merchandise item, wherein the return support server determines the response by selecting a response from among options including a response indicating the merchandise item is not returnable, a response indicating that the merchandise item is returnable, and a response indicating that the merchandise item is not returnable […]. (col. 5, lines 1-11: see above); (col. 13, lines 1-5: the system may identify a return resolution for a user. For example, the user may be asked what they would like to receive for the returning item via the user’s device, e.g., cash, gift card, replacement item, exchanged item, etc.); (claim 6: determining that the item fails to satisfy a constraint associated with returning the item, and transmitting a communication to the device of the user including a denial of the return of the item, but initiating a refund for the item).
Although Jaff teaches a system that is configured to output a notification/return resolution to a user device indicating whether a return is accepted or denied based on a return condition being satisfied, Jaff does not explicitly teach a response indicating that the merchandise item is not returnable but a promotion is available to the user.
However, Hammond teaches the following:
Output, across the communication network, a notification to the user terminal indicating the response regarding the attempt to return the merchandise item, wherein the return support server determines the response by selecting a response from among options including a response indicating the merchandise item is not returnable, a response indicating that the merchandise item is returnable, and a response indicating that the merchandise item is not returnable but a promotion is available to the user. (¶ [0034]: POR device is a device that is dedicated for use with merchandise returns and may be used in association with the described systems and methods. POR device includes hand-held devices, wireless device, self-serve kiosk, etc.); (¶ [0039]: communication between devices are carried out over a network); (¶ [0040]: a clerk handling the requested return uses the POR device to send information about an authorization request to the merchandise return and reward authorization service); (¶ [0029]: a clerk processing the return may send data about the requested return transaction to a merchandise return and reward authorization service and may receive in response a return authorization determination that instructs the clerk to either accept or deny the return transaction. The clerk may offer the customer a coupon in response to the authorization determination received for the requested transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Jaff with the teachings of Hammond by incorporating the features for providing a response indicating that a merchandise item is not returnable but a promotion is available to a user, as taught by Hammond, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In 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 are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification when one considers “the reward may be offered as an incentive […] to encourage another purchase” (¶ [0005]) and coupons “may be especially effective in generating additional sales” (¶ [0005]), as suggested by Hammond. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Hammond are compatible with the system of Jaff as they share capabilities and characteristics. Namely, they are both systems directed towards processing merchandise returns for customers.
Claim 3: Jaff/Hammond teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Jaff teaches the following:
Wherein the response indicating that the merchandise item is returnable further indicates whether the merchandise item can be returned for a full refund, an exchange, or a partial refund. (col. 13, lines 1-5: the system may identify a return resolution for a user. For example, the user may be asked what they would like to receive for the returning item via the user’s device, e.g., cash, gift card, replacement item, exchanged item, etc.).
Claim 4: Jaff/Hammond teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Jaff teaches the following:
Wherein return support server selects between the response indicating the merchandise item is not returnable and the response indicating that the merchandise item is not returnable but a promotion is available to the user based on a transaction history to the user. (col. 5, lines 1-5: the system may determine that the item is returnable by satisfying a constraint. For example, the constraint may include cost. The item may be returnable if the cost of the return is below a particular cost); (claim 6: determining that the cost of the item fails to satisfy a constraint associated with returning the item and transmitting a communication to the device of the user including a denial of the return of the item).
Claim 6: Jaff/Hammond teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Jaff teaches the following:
The return support server attempts to acquire details about a transaction in which the merchandise item was purchased; and (col. 4, lines 20-28: Once the user is identified, the user can be associated with a user's order history. The data store can store information associated with the items that the user was previously provided. The order history data can include item identifiers, item providers, users that were provided with the particular items, the allowable timeframe to return the items, or other relevant information. The order history data can be sorted, filtered, aggregated, or archived as well).
Determines that the merchandise item is unreturnable if details about the transaction can not be acquired. (col. 4, lines 20-28: see above); (col. 4, lines 29-44: The method 100 may determine if the item is available to return 130. For example, the determination may consider whether the item was provided within an allowable timeframe or whether the request to return the item satisfies some constraint for returning the item. For example, once the computer system 120 determines the user, identifier of the item shown in the image, and the allowable timeframe for returning the particular item, the computer system 120 can determine that the item was provided to the user within the allowable timeframe for returning the item to the item provider); (col. 4, lines 60-67: if the item was not provided to the user (e.g., the item is identified by an identifier, but does not appear in the user's order history data), then the return management computers may not determine that the user is initiating a return of the item to the item provider.)
Thus, Jaff teaches that if the identified item does not appear in the user’s order history data (stored in a data store), then the system does not determine that the item is being returned (i.e., the item is not returnable).
Additionally, the system only enables a user to return an item if the return is being done within an allowable timeframe. The system determines the allowable timeframe information from the order history (stored in a data store). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize if the order history information corresponding to the item cannot be found or doesn’t exist in the data store, then the system cannot process the return workflow.
Claim 7: Jaff/Hammond teaches the limitations of claim 6. Furthermore, Jaff teaches the following:
Wherein the return support server includes a storage device and attempts to acquire details about the transaction from the storage device. (col. 4, lines 20-28: Once the user is identified, the user can be associated with a user's order history. The data store can store information associated with the items that the user was previously provided. The order history data can include item identifiers, item providers, users that were provided with the particular items, the allowable timeframe to return the items, or other relevant information. The order history data can be sorted, filtered, aggregated, or archived as well).
Claim 8: Jaff/Hammond teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Jaff teaches the following:
A store terminal, wherein the return support server further outputs the notification to the store terminal. (col. 14, line 64 – col. 15, line 5: The return module 246 may also be configured to generate a confirmation of a return or a workflow. For example, the return module 246 can transmit an electronic notification to a user and/or item provider to inform the user and/or item provider of the progress of the return or workflow. The confirmation may include a return resolution that identifies what the user can receive for returning the item); (col. 7, lines 23-29: user devices are in communication with the return management computers via a network).
Claim 9: Jaff teaches the following:
A merchandise return support server, comprising: a communication interface connectable to a user terminal via a network; a storage device storing return conditions; and a processor configured to: (col. 7, lines 9-16: the return management computer system is arranged in a cluster of servers that hosts the application. The application handles requests from users and serves web pages. The application can provide any type of website); (col. 7, lines 23-29: user devices are in communication with the return management computers via a network); (col. 8, lines 39-42: the return management computers may include a memory and one or more processors); (col. 4, lines 20-28: a user can be associated with a user's order history. A data store can store information associated with the items that the user was previously provided. The order history data can be sorted, filtered, aggregated, or archived); (col. 9, lines 33-40: memory includes operating system, data stores, and various programs/modules, including a user module, item analysis module, and return module); (col. 12: 41-45: user module may identify return policies of item providers and constraints associated with allowing an item to be returned).
The remaining limitations of claim 9 are substantially analogous to the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, the remaining limitations of claim 9 are rejected for substantially the same reasons and rationale as discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Claim 11: Jaff/Hammond teaches the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 11 are substantially analogous to the limitations of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons and rationale as discussed above with regard to claim 3.
Claim 12: Jaff/Hammond teaches the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore, Jaff teaches the following:
Wherein the processors selects between the response indicating the merchandise item is not returnable and the response indicating that the merchandise item is not returnable but a promotion is available to the user based on a transaction history to the user stored in the storage device. (col. 5, lines 1-5: the system may determine that the item is returnable by satisfying a constraint. For example, the constraint may include cost. The item may be returnable if the cost of the return is below a particular cost); (claim 6: determining that the cost of the item fails to satisfy a constraint associated with returning the item and transmitting a communication to the device of the user including a denial of the return of the item).
Claim 14: Jaff/Hammond teaches the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore, Jaff teaches the following:
The processor attempts to acquire details about a transaction in which the merchandise item was purchased from the storage device; and (col. 4, lines 20-28: Once the user is identified, the user can be associated with a user's order history. The data store can store information associated with the items that the user was previously provided. The order history data can include item identifiers, item providers, users that were provided with the particular items, the allowable timeframe to return the items, or other relevant information. The order history data can be sorted, filtered, aggregated, or archived as well).
Determines that the merchandise item is unreturnable if details about the transaction can not be acquired from the storage device. (col. 4, lines 20-28: see above); (col. 4, lines 29-44: The method 100 may determine if the item is available to return 130. For example, the determination may consider whether the item was provided within an allowable timeframe or whether the request to return the item satisfies some constraint for returning the item. For example, once the computer system 120 determines the user, identifier of the item shown in the image, and the allowable timeframe for returning the particular item, the computer system 120 can determine that the item was provided to the user within the allowable timeframe for returning the item to the item provider); (col. 4, lines 60-67: if the item was not provided to the user (e.g., the item is identified by an identifier, but does not appear in the user's order history data), then the return management computers may not determine that the user is initiating a return of the item to the item provider.)
Thus, Jaff teaches that if the identified item does not appear in the user’s order history data (stored in a data store), then the system does not determine that the item is being returned (i.e., the item is not returnable).
Additionally, the system only enables a user to return an item if the return is being done within an allowable timeframe. The system determines the allowable timeframe information from the order history (stored in a data store). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize if the order history information corresponding to the item cannot be found or doesn’t exist in the data store, then the system cannot process the return workflow.
Claim 15: Jaff/Hammond teaches the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore, Jaff teaches the following:
Wherein the processor is further configured to output the notification to a store terminal via the network. (col. 14, line 64 – col. 15, line 5: The return module 246 may also be configured to generate a confirmation of a return or a workflow. For example, the return module 246 can transmit an electronic notification to a user and/or item provider to inform the user and/or item provider of the progress of the return or workflow. The confirmation may include a return resolution that identifies what the user can receive for returning the item); (col. 7, lines 23-29: user devices are in communication with the return management computers via a network).
Claim 16: The limitations of claim 16 are substantially analogous to the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons and rationale as discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Claim 17: Jaff/Hammond teaches the limitations of claim 16. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 17 are substantially analogous to the limitations of claim 8. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons and rationale as discussed above with regard to claim 8.
Claim 19: Jaff/Hammond teaches the limitations of claim 16. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 19 are substantially analogous to the limitations of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons and rationale as discussed above with regard to claim 3.
Claim 20: Jaff/Hammond teaches the limitations of claim 16. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 20 are substantially analogous to the limitations of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons and rationale as discussed above with regard to claim 4.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jaff, in view of Hammond, in further view of Wicks et al. U.S. Publication No. 2019/0287055, hereafter known as Wicks.
Claim 5: Jaff/Hammond teaches the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, Jaff does not explicitly teach, however Wicks does teach, the following:
The return support server further acquires a user estimation of the state of the merchandise item and from the terminal of the user, (¶ [0046]: condition data includes data describing the condition of the item and/or item packaging. Condition data includes user-provided condition data describing the condition of the item, a user-provided reason identifying the reasons for return of the item, and/or condition data obtained from one or more sensor devices); (¶ [0033]: the user interface is configured to display and receive data from the user); (¶ [0038]: a user device includes an item disposition application that is implemented as a client-side application downloaded from a sever for automated claims disposition).
The response regarding the attempt to return the merchandise item is further based on the user estimation of the state of the merchandise item. (Abstract: a system for managing disposition of returned items and/or items having damaged packaging. The system obtains condition data describing the condition of the item and identifies a set of applicable disposition options customized for the item. The system recommends a disposition from the set of applicable disposition options including a price markdown, donation of the item, return of the item to a supplier, and so forth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Jaff the ability to acquire a user estimation of the state of a merchandise item from a terminal of a user and provide a response to a return request of the merchandise item based on the user estimation of the state of the merchandise item, as taught by Wicks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification when one considers that this “improves user efficiency, reduces errors associated with item disposition decisions, and increases consistency regarding application of the applicable rules” (¶ [0023]), as suggested by Wicks.
Claim 13: Jaff/Hammond teaches the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 13 are substantially analogous to the limitations of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons and rationale as discussed above with regard to claim 5.
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 JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628