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
On 4/14/26, applicant filed an amendment. Claims 1-21 were pending. By amendment, claims 1-19 are pending with claims 1, 9-14 amended and claims 20-21 are canceled. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non-persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
Claim Objection
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 is objected because it does not further limit claim 1 to which it depends. It’s essentially redundant with claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 contains “scanning using the locally stored product data, then a plurality of scanned products, then “the scanned products,” Applicant should refer to “a plurality of scanned products” as “the plurality of scanned products” for clarity. The examiner will presume this is what the applicant intended.
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.
Claims 4-8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Here claim 4 is dependent on claim 20 which is canceled. Claims 5-8 depend on claim 4 which is dependent on claim 20.
The examiner will presume that applicant intended claim 4 to be dependent on claim 1.
Correction is required.
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.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 1-19 recite(s) (claim 1 is independent), a system for implementing a product purchase reward scheme…
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is merely apply generic computers and computing components to a well known abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because using a terminal, a display and other generic elements to carry out a purchase reward scheme is essentially an abstract idea without more.
Here a “system” claim is directed to a statutory category.
It appears that the general process is to offer rewards to the user by use of generic elements such as an optical scanner, a terminal, card reader, digital display, scanning controller and now a firewall, encryption module and a reward scheme server.
These limitations at their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity (see claim 1) scanning of a card for purchase and/or reward purpose is essentially a fundamental economic practice. Accordingly the claim recites an abstract idea. The above computer elements are just “apply it” type recitations. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. As currently claimed these are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea without more.
Claim 11 was indicated to be helpful, however, claim 11 is now incorporated in claim 1 but further free standing and thus claim 11 would appear to not be further limiting.
Claims 2-19 are dependent on claim 1 but do not add further elements aside from claim 11 which has a hashing process.
Potentially allowable by modifying claim 1: Applicant argues;
Amended claim 1 recites multiple technical solutions to these problems. First, the EFTPOS terminal stores product data locally and ascertains prices using the locally stored product data. This is a specific technical architecture that departs from conventional EFTPOS terminals, which receive only total amounts from external POS systems. Second, the firewall and encryption module are integrated within the EFTPOS terminal to secure both the locally stored product data and transmission to the reward scheme server. Third, the payment controller generates and stores a hash of the PAN using a one-way hashing algorithm. Fourth, the refund controller receives a further PAN, generates a further hash using the same algorithm, compares the hashes, and upon matching, initiates reversal transactions. This hash-based verification addresses the technical problem of enabling secure refund verification while maintaining PCI compliance.
Applicant argues that the PCI compliance is a key part of the inventive concept. The applicant should incorporate the PCI compliance element in claim 1. Claim 11 needs to be considered in the context of the fact that any redundancy with claim 1 should be eliminated. The examiner also identified some issues with the claim dependency.
Response to Arguments
On 4/14/26, applicant filed an amendment. Claims 1-21 were pending. By amendment, claims 1-19 are pending with claims 1, 9-14 amended and claims 20-21 are canceled. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non-persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
Claim objections – withdrawn in view of amendment, replaced with new.
35 USC 112(a)-withdrawn.
35 USC 112(b)- replaced by new.
In regards to 35 USC 101,
Applicant argues that the claims do not reflect an abstract idea, but rather “a specific technical system architecture” – here the abstract idea is transaction clearing, the use of generic elements, though many does not necessarily create a practical application.
In regards to practical application- applicant claims the technical problem is that convention POS systems are locked down and deny API access. EFTPOS terminals cannot be modified due to PCI compliance requirements… The system overcomes these problems.
In summary of applicant argument;
First, the EFTPOS terminal stores product data locally and ascertains prices using the locally stored product data.
This is a specific technical architecture that departs from conventional EFTPOS terminals, which receive only total amounts from external POS systems.
Second, the firewall and encryption module are integrated within the EFTPOS terminal to secure both the locally stored product data and transmission to the reward scheme server.
Third, the payment controller generates and stores a hash of the PAN using a one-way hashing algorithm. Fourth, the refund controller receives a further PAN, generates a further hash using the same algorithm, compares the hashes, and upon matching, initiates reversal transactions. This hash-based verification addresses the technical problem of enabling secure refund verification while maintaining PCI compliance. The system can verify that the same payment card is being used for the refund without storing the actual PAN. As stated in the specification:
"In embodiments to avoid having to store PANs (even in encrypted format), a one-way hash of the PAN is stored in the transaction log and wherein a PAN obtained by the EFTPOS terminal from the customer's payment card is hashed using the same one-way hash algorithm to verify that the same payment card is being used for the refund transaction as was used for the original transaction." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0079].
Here the claims are directed to improving the abstract idea.
In regards to one-way hashing algorithm, the amendment does help but, does not fully create an inventive concept or practical application.
Here in regards to 35 USC 101, the examiner has indicated that potentially highlighting the PCI compliance, and clarifying claim dependency.
In regards to 35 USC 103(a), the examiner concedes that the combination of Rephlo, Kalgi, Villaret and Graylin would inherently be untenable so the rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure from a search of IP.com
Cashless transaction for resort club amenities using RFID technology, IEEE 2017
Card-based Macropayment for Mobile Phones, IEEE 2008
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 BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights