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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application filed on 09/03/2024.
Claims 1 is presented for examination.
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.
Claim 1 has rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claim 1 has directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “A method of conducting a transaction between a the merchant POS, the selected customer being one from the list of open tabs; and associating the ticket ID with information for the selected customer”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe conducting a transact between a merchant Point of Sale system (POS) and a customer using a web portable to pay an open ticket ID. Further, the elements above recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that could be practically performed in the mind or by using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a merchant Point of Sale system (POS) and a customer device and a step for gathering information. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the a merchant Point of Sale system (POS) and a customer device amounts to no more than a general computing component that is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for gathering information is an insignificant extra solution activity to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a merchant Point of Sale system (POS) and a customer device and a step for gathering information. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements the computing device amounts to no more than a general computing component that is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for gathering information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2105.06(d)(II). Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 1 has rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated et al. “US 2012/0290421 A” by Qawami et al. “US 2012/0290421 A1” (Qawami).
Regarding Claim 1: A method of conducting a transaction between a merchant Point of Sale system (POS) and a customer device, comprising:
activating a web portal in response to activation of a button on the merchant POS (at least see Qawami Abstract; Fig. 1; [0047]-[0048]);
retrieving a list of open tabs created by customer devices that checked in, each of the open tabs being associated with a customer (at least see Qawami Abstract; Fig. 1; [0046]-[0047]);
receiving, from the merchant POS, a ticket ID of a ticket that is currently open on the merchant POS (at least see Qawami Abstract; Fig. 3; [0051]);
presenting the list of open tabs on the merchant POS via the web portal (at least see Qawami Abstract; Fig. 11-12; [0065]);
receiving a customer selection from the merchant POS, the selected customer being one from the list of open tabs (at least see Qawami Abstract; [0078]); and
associating the ticket ID with information for the selected customer (at least see Qawami Abstract; Fig. 4; [0043]).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, are cited in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PT0-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights