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
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 12/19/2025 for the application No. 18/896,395, Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-15 and 18-23 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-15 and 18-23 have been rejected.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant filed certified patent document, Application number 2023-180798 on 2023-10-20.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“unit configured to acquire“ in claim 1
“unit configured to store” in claim 1
“unit configured to generate” in claim 1
“unit configured to output” in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The Examiner notes that in the instant case, the Examiner looks to the specification to determine the structure or material that performs the functions recited in the pointed claim limitations
“unit configured to store” is a non-specialized function. This is a function known by those of ordinary skill in the art as being commonly performed by a general purpose computer or computer component. It has support in Fig. 1 and associated disclosure.
“unit configured to acquire“, “unit configured to generate” and “unit configured to output” in claim 1, are specialized functions and the follow citation describe some computer components and structure to perform the functions. Since these functions are specialized and the functions are programmed computer functions, they requires a computer programmed “algorithm” to perform the function. It seems that there is a description of content in the instant specification
“unit configured to acquire“ in claim 1, support to acquire the sales transaction data in a data format is described in “[0008] FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an example of a data structure of second POS data.”, paragraph 8, Fig. 2 and associated disclosure.
The “unit configured to generate” in claim 1, has support in “0097] The second data processing unit 115 generates the display information based on the second POS data satisfying the extraction condition. For example, the second data processing unit 115 generates the processed data based on the aggregation of the different second POS data satisfying the extraction condition. The processed data can be the transaction performance data. The second data processing unit 115 can obtain the transaction performance data based on the aggregation of second POS data. The second data processing unit 115 generates the content display information based on the processed data.
[0103] The second data processing unit 115 searches for, on a per processing unit basis, one or more pieces of second POS data included in the processing unit from among the plurality of pieces of second POS data satisfying the extraction condition. For example, the second data processing unit 115 can search for, based on various types of data such as the transaction date, the transaction time point, the store code, and the commodity code included in the second POS data, one or more pieces of second POS data included in the processing unit. The second data processing unit 115 can obtain, on a per processing unit basis, the transaction performance based on one or more pieces of second POS data included in the processing unit.
[0110] The second communication processing unit 114 outputs the display information generated by the second data processing unit 115 (ACT 23). In ACT 23, for example, the second communication processing unit 114 outputs the display information to the terminal 3 via the communication interface 14. The terminal 3 displays an image based on the display information”, see at least paragraphs 97, 103 and 110 and flowchart in Fig. 5. Further at least original claim 4 as part of the instant specification states “wherein the second data processing unit generates the sales analysis information based on a subset of the transaction data extracted from the stored transaction data in the predetermined format based on an extraction condition set based on a request from a user terminal received via the second communication processing unit”. See also Fig. 1 and associated disclosure. Further, the extraction condition (s) are described in the instant specification in flowchart in Fig. 7 and associated disclosure.
and “unit configured to output” in claim 1, is supported by flowcharts in Fig. 5, 6 and 7 and associated disclosure. Claim limitations are adequately supported by the specification such that the limitation has definite boundaries in accordance with section 112(b). The limitations are definite.
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, 3-6, 8-11, 13-15 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-15 and 18-23 are not compliant with 101, according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). Examiner’s analysis is presented below in the claims.
Claim 11: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim? Yes. The claim recites the limitations of “generating sales analysis information based on pieces of the transaction data in the predetermined format”
The “generating ” limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The method for a server for a multiuser sales data analysis system. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional limitations, such as,
“ acquiring …transaction data related to sales transactions in a plurality of data formats”; “outputting …the generated sales analysis information…” . These are limitations toward extracting or receiving data (gathering data). The Examiner analyses other supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure:
“a server for a multiuser sales data analysis system; via a communication interface from a plurality of point-of-sale devices; in a storage unit; stored in the storage unit; to a user terminal via the communication interface”; “…for display to a system user by processing of…”; “the transaction data is acquired from each point-of-sale device as part of an inquiry for coupon information regarding a coupon to be dispensed from the point-of-sale device upon a closing of a sales transaction”. All these elements are recited in a very generic way.
The Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above elements. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Thus, the claim is ineligible because is directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim,
“a server for a multiuser sales data analysis system; via a communication interface from a plurality of point-of-sale devices; in a storage unit; stored in the storage unit; to a user terminal via the communication interface”; “…for display to a system user by processing of…”; “the transaction data is acquired from each point-of-sale device as part of an inquiry for coupon information regarding a coupon to be dispensed from the point-of-sale device upon a closing of a sales transaction”, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware and software cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Other limitations in the claim, such as:
“ acquiring …transaction data related to sales transactions in a plurality of data formats”; “outputting …the generated sales analysis information…” . These are limitations toward extracting or receiving data (gathering data). Acquiring or accessing, storing or receiving data is very well understood, routine and conventional computer task activity; It represents insignificant extra solution activity. Mere data-gathering step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstaturory claim statutory In re Grams,888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Further, the instant specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements “a server for a multiuser sales data analysis system; via a communication interface from a plurality of point-of-sale devices; in a storage unit; stored in the storage unit; to a user terminal via the communication interface”; “…for display to a system user by processing of…”; “the transaction data is acquired from each point-of-sale device as part of an inquiry for coupon information regarding a coupon to be dispensed from the point-of-sale device upon a closing of a sales transaction”, were are anything other than generic software and hardware, and the OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); and v. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely computer receives and sends information over a network and presenting or displaying information, is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “server for a multiuser sales data analysis system; via a communication interface from a plurality of point-of-sale devices; in a storage unit; stored in the storage unit; to a user terminal via the communication interface”; “…for display to a system user by processing of…”; “the transaction data is acquired from each point-of-sale device as part of an inquiry for coupon information regarding a coupon to be dispensed from the point-of-sale device upon a closing of a sales transaction”. limitations (pointed above) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 1: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a system.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 6: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a server (a system).
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-23, the claims recite elements such as “wherein the transaction data is received from a point-of-sale device as part of an inquiry for coupon information from the point-of-sale device”, etc. These elements do not integrate the system of organizing human activity into a practical application. The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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, 3-6, 8-11, 13-15 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017056091 (ZAGATSKY).
As to claims 1, 6 and 11, ZAGATSKY discloses an information processing system (abstract), comprising:
a) a first communication processing unit (Fig. 4 element 202) configured to acquire transaction data related to sales transactions in a plurality of data formats;
(“…The customer/seller is then provided access to electronic versions of the data in one or more formats and/or some or all of the receipt data.”, page 12);
b) a first data processing unit (Fig. 4 element 203) configured to store, in a storage unit, the transaction data in a predetermined format;
(“…The data may be sent to a system, such as a remote server (e.g., a customer
management system), which will perform data processing and analysis using proprietary algorithms to extract relevant information from POS data flow, store it in the Data Base…”, page 12.
“…The data can be stored in a database, where the different pieces of data are mapped to corresponding fields. For example, the store name can be mapped to a store name field, a purchased item name can be mapped to a purchased item field, an item price can be mapped to an item price field, a tax can be mapped to a tax field, a total can be mapped to a total field, etc”, page 18);
c)a [second] data processing unit configured (Fig. 4 element 203) to generate sales analysis information for display to a system user by processing of pieces of the transaction data in the predetermined format stored in the storage unit; and
(“analyze said raw communication data using an Analysis Module;” abstract. and “…analyze said raw communication data using an Analysis Module; said Analysis Module adapted to extract customer information from said raw communication data and associate it with the transaction details extracted from said raw communication data…”, page 6.
“It is another object of the present invention to provide the data capturing device, wherein the output of said at least one step of processing of said Analysis Module is then allocated in a database, said database having a plurality of modules adapted to store relevant specific data.”, page 7.
“..The data may be sent to a system, such as a remote server (e.g., a customer
management system), which will perform data processing and analysis using proprietary algorithms to extract relevant information from POS data flow, store it in the Data Base and then may email the customer and/or the seller, and/or may make the information available via a network site, such as a web site…The customer/seller is then provided access to electronic versions of the data in one or more formats and/or some or all of the receipt data….”, page 12.
“In order to overcome the foregoing challenges, certain embodiments described herein
enable point of sales systems to extend data analysis capabilities, without requiring that
new software be installed on the POS terminals. Certain embodiments further do not
require new software to be installed on the POS system backend. Thus, for example,
certain embodiments of the router device can be utilized with POS terminals, printers,
and systems, for a variety of different suppliers and manufacturers, without having to
customize the router device for a given POS manufacture's or supplier's equipment.”, page 13
“Second phase of data processing and analysis is usually done by a remote system, which may include verification and automatic correction of raw data parsing results. This
analysis can be done based on logical rules (e.g. phone number should include numeric
characters) and also through comparison to known data such as: customer address can be verified vs geolocation service and list of previous customer addresses; order item can be verified vs generic restaurant menu; etc.” page 16.
“The formatting can be automated based on parsing and "understanding" the text and/or on the location of the text. For example, the formatting of the data often follow a predictable pattern, where the information positioned towards the top of a printout…”, page 18);
d) and a [second] communication processing unit configured (Fig. 4 element 202) to output the sales analysis information generated by the [second] data processing unit.
(“The specific format and layout of a printout may be determined by the point of sale
software being used (e.g. proprietary POS software from one or more entities), by type peripheral device (e.g. type of receipt printer) and/or end-user/merchant configurable
settings. The formatting information may be user specified. For example, a merchant can specify (e.g., via a web-based administrative site hosted by the remote system that will perform the parsing), what POS software is deployed within the merchant's stores or what type of printer is used. By knowing what POS software is deployed and the settings configuration, the process can determine the receipt format and layout”, pages 17 and 18.
“a. a plurality of data capturing devices, each one connected to a data output
port of said POS for collecting transaction record as raw communication
data and transmitting said raw communication data either "as is" or after at
least one step of processing to a computer server…h. an output port adapted to send said data stream to said peripheral device”, claim 1).
e) wherein the transaction data is acquired from a point-of-sale device as part of an inquiry for coupon information regarding a coupon to be dispensed from the point-of-sale device upon a closing of a sales transaction.
(“A system for capturing and utilizing a data stream from a point-of-sale terminal (POS) to a peripheral device, the system comprising: a plurality of data capturing devices, each one connected to a data output port of said POS for collecting transaction record as raw communication data and transmitting said raw communication data either "as is" or after at least one step of processing to a computer server…”, abstract.
“It is another object of the present invention to provide the method, wherein said step of allocating all data in a non-transitory computer readable media (CRM) adapted to store data further comprises the steps of: creating a merchant profile, comprising: sold items, time and date of purchases, merchant sales person, prices of sold items; performing data auto correction and verification of certain customer and transaction details based on previously collected and stored data; and creating a customer profile, comprising: personal information (name, address, phone number, credit card information, ID number), sold items, time and date of purchases, prices of sold items [Examiner interprets as upon a closing of a sales transaction]”, page 12.
“Optionally, the notification can include some or all of the data relating to
the event that caused the notification (e.g., a copy of a receipt or discount coupon…”, page 19.
See also “…Printout data may include field names ( e.g., "tax", "total", etc.) and variable values ( e.g., the actual tax amount that is to be printed on the printout, the total amount to be printed on the printout, etc.). Example types of printout data are described below, although a given printout can include less or more types of information:
Merchant data: Merchant name, address of store where purchase was made, and/or
merchant phone number;
Transaction data: Identifier of sales person; date of transaction, code identifying the store,
code identifying the register/POS terminal used in the transaction, item data (e.g., UPC
code, textual description, list price, actual sales price, quantity, total costs for a given
item (item price * quantity), savings ((list price * quantity)-(item price * quantity));
Sales summary: subtotal, sales tax, total for the sale (total = subtotal + sales tax)
Payment data: Account number, credit/debit card type, card expiration date, approval
code, merchant code, amount paid in cash;
Customer data: customer identifier, customer name, phone number, address, custom
customer notes to the order.
Marketing profile, rewards offer data: discount coupon…”, page 17).
ZAGATSKY does not expressly disclose
second data processing unit
second communication processing unit
But from the teaching of ZAGATSKY’s system Figs 1 and 4 and associated disclosure and claims 1 and 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate ZAGATSKY’s teaching on Figs 1 and 4 and associated disclosure ; Fig. 4 element 202 and 203; “…The customer/seller is then provided access to electronic versions of the data in one or more formats and/or some or all of the receipt data”, page 12; and claims 1 and 2 to arrive to the claimed recitation and the results would have been predictable.
As to claims 3, 8 and 13, ZAGATSKY discloses
wherein the first data processing unit converts a format of the acquired transaction data into the predetermined format.
(“FIG. 5 illustrates an example flowchart of the operation of the POS system 300. As
similarly discussed above, the POS terminal 100 sends the print data 301 to the
interceptor device 110, including general information, receipt data and printer commands.
At this point the interceptor device can be in two possible modes 302: modifying or
listening. If the print data interceptor is in "modifying mode" 304, the printer data is
passed to the current converter 306 to be modified and adapted to be read by the CPU
205.”, page 24)
As to claims 4, 9 and 14, ZAGATSKY discloses
wherein the second data processing unit generates the sales analysis information based on a subset of the transaction data extracted from the stored transaction data in the predetermined format based on an extraction condition set based on a request from a user terminal received via the second communication processing unit.
(“FIG. 6 illustrates an example flowchart of the operation of the Server 400. The server 450 receives transmission from device (110) 401, it performs first phase of analysis (rules-based) 402, then second phase of verification and automatic correction 403. At this point if the information is new, then there is the creation 404 and saving of merchant and customer profile in the database 405 along with additional transaction data. If the information is not new, therefore is an existing costumer, then the data is updated 406 along with additional transaction data”, page 25.
“1. A system for capturing and utilizing a data stream from a point-of-sale terminal
(POS) to a peripheral device, the system comprising:
a. a plurality of data capturing devices, each one connected to a data output
port of said POS for collecting transaction record as raw communication
data and transmitting said raw communication data either "as is" or after at
least one step of processing to a computer server;
b. a computer server programmed to:
i. receive said raw communication data from said plurality of data
capturing devices;
ii. analyze said raw communication data using an Analysis Module;
c. said Analysis Module adapted to extract customer information from said
raw communication data and associate it with the transaction details
extracted from said raw communication data”, claim 1).
As to claims 5, 10 and 15, ZAGATSKY discloses
wherein the stored transaction data is associated with a user authority setting.
(“Al discloses a customer receipt data collection
robotic (RBOT) device which is connected to a point-of-sale (POS) device, such as a
cash register, through an available connection link, such as an available auxiliary printer
port or in-line connection. The RBOT device operates autonomously to collect receipt
data for transmission to a Data Center for storing and processing the collected receipt
data and making the results thereof accessible online to vendors and customers. The
customer receipt data are tagged with the customer's ID number by scanning a customer barcode ID or a magstripe customer ID store card. At the Data Center, useful data mining functions are performed on the collected receipt data, and the results are made available online to vendors for inventory control and/or product sales purposes, and to customers for accessing their purchase histories and/or for customer loyalty, discount and/or reward programs”, page 4.
“system for compiling a plurality of digital receipts and the transaction data from the plurality of digital receipts (e-receipts) from a plurality of vendors includes forwarding the plurality of digital receipts to a central collection point such as a data warehouse. The central collection point is adapted to categorize the plurality of digital receipts and all of the transaction data therefrom. Access to the central collection point is controlled and/or restricted on a subscription basis. Each retailer 1s in communication with the central collection point. The data warehouse may be accessible via a public network (i.e. Internet) or a private network.”, page 7).
As to claims 18, 19 and 20, ZAGATSKY discloses
Claim 18:
wherein the transaction data is acquired from point-sale-terminals operated at different stores.
(“…Access to the central collection point is controlled and/or restricted on a subscription
basis. Each retailer 1s in communication with the central collection point.
The data warehouse may be accessible via a public network (i.e. Internet) or a private
Network…”, page 5).
Claim 19:
wherein the different stores are owned by different retailers.
(“[0010] The present invention provides a system for compiling a plurality of digital receipts and the transaction data from the plurality of digital receipts (e-receipts)
from a plurality of vendors that includes forwarding the plurality of digital receipts to a central collection point such as a data warehouse. The central collection point
is adapted to categorize the plurality of digital receipts and all of the transaction data therefrom. Access to the central collection point is controlled and/or restricted
preferably on a subscription basis. The data warehouse may be accessible via a public network (i.e. Internet) or a private network.”, paragraph 10 of Patent EP 1 209 601 incorporated by reference on page 5 of ZAGATSKY.
“…The central office 120 may provide consolidation of store level data for management review as well as providing a gateway for the store to common credit/
debit authorization networks. The central office 120 may be a database or data warehouse for the digital receipts generated by the various retail terminals, both those
maintained by the merchant/owner of the central office 120 and those of other merchants. As well, the central office 120 may be independent of a merchant…”, paragraph 27 of Patent EP 1 209 601 incorporated by reference on page 5 of ZAGATSKY).
Claim 20:
wherein the stored transaction data is associated with a user authority setting limiting access to particular retailers.
(“…The data can then be presented to a user (e.g., the customer, merchant, and/or other authorized party) via user interface provided via a terminal…”, page 18).
As to claims 21, 22 and 23, ZAGATSKY discloses
a coupon processing unit configured to output the coupon information regarding
the coupon to be dispensed based on a comparison of the transaction data corresponding to the sales transaction to coupon output conditions stored in the storage unit.
(““Optionally, the system likewise enables merchants to display, query, and generate reports that summarize purchase information on a store by store basis, for all stores, etc. The consumer can be provided aggregated information on their spending habits, optionally over a selected period of times. Similarly, a merchant can view who are their better customers, how much they spend over a given period of time, and what types of items they are spending their money on.
Optionally, the user can specify that certain notifications should be sent to the user (e.g., via email, SMS/text messaging, and/or via phone, etc.) upon the occurrence of certain events or conditions. For example, the user can be notified each time a new order is received, when specified spending thresholds have been reached or exceeded, when discounts or special offers are being made available, and/or when summary reports have been generated. Optionally, the notification can include some or all of the data relating to the event that caused the notification (e.g., a copy of a receipt or discount coupon).”, pages 18-19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 12/19/2025 have been very carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding to priority, the Examiner clarifies that the benefit of prior -filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) .is acknowledged. Also per 37 CFR 1.55 (g)(3): An English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is not required except: (i) When the application is involved in an interference (see § 41.202 of this chapter) or derivation (see part 42 of this chapter) proceeding;(ii) When necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner; or(iii) When specifically required by the examiner.(4) If an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, it must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate.
Applicant argues (remarks 9-10)
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
International No. 2017 /056091 to Zagatsky (hereinafter "Zagatsky").
Claim 1 recites: "the transaction data is acquired from a point-of-sale device as
part of an inquiry for coupon information regarding a coupon to be dispensed from
the point-of-sale device upon a closing of a sales transaction."
In general, Zagatsky concerns a system in which listeners/monitors send
portions of transaction receipt data to a collection server. Such a system relies on the
customer transaction having been closed and a receipt being printed by a receipt printer
accordingly. In this system, there is no "inquiry for coupon information regarding a coupon
to be dispensed from the point-of-sale device upon a closing of a sales transaction."
There is certainly no acquisition of "transaction data" or the like in association with or "as
a part of an inquiry for coupon information."…
In response the Examiner asserts that Zagatsky’s reference discloses all the limitations in the instant claims. There is not novelty at all in the claims.
Zagatsky’s reference discloses at least “A system for capturing and utilizing a data stream from a point-of-sale terminal (POS) to a peripheral device, the system comprising: a plurality of data capturing devices, each one connected to a data output port of said POS for collecting transaction record as raw communication data and transmitting said raw communication data either "as is" or after at least one step of processing to a computer server…”, abstract. And that the Zagatsky’s system can enables merchants to display, query, and generate messages like discounts coupons based on the occurrence of certain events or conditions, “Optionally, the system likewise enables merchants to display, query, and generate reports that summarize purchase information on a store by store basis, for all stores, etc. The consumer can be provided aggregated information on their spending habits, optionally over a selected period of times. Similarly, a merchant can view who are their better customers, how much they spend over a given period of time, and what types of items they are spending their money on.
Optionally, the user can specify that certain notifications should be sent to the user (e.g., via email, SMS/text messaging, and/or via phone, etc.) upon the occurrence of certain events or conditions. For example, the user can be notified each time a new order is received, when specified spending thresholds have been reached or exceeded, when discounts or special offers are being made available, and/or when summary reports have been generated. Optionally, the notification can include some or all of the data relating to the event that caused the notification (e.g., a copy of a receipt or discount coupon”, pages 18-19.
As such, the office action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to claim 1 for at least the above reasons….
In response the Examiner asserts that the last office action and the current one have not failed in establish a prima facie case. In this case a prima facie of obviousness has been established . The Examiner respectfully notes that applicant has not provided persuasive rebuttal evidence to overcome the prima facie case. Further, the elements of this instant Application are old and well known at the time of the invention. The combination set for the rejection produce results that are predictable. The claims are broad and the search conducted in this case shows that there is lack of novelty on the claimed invention therefore there is a loss of a right to a patent. The prior art read on the broad claims.
Applicant argues (remarks 9-10)
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection - Claims 1-20
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention
is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In general, the rejection appears to contend the claims are directed to a method
of organizing human activity. See Office Action, p. 9….
Applicant further requests reconsideration of this rejection in view of recent
PTAB decision, Ex Parle Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26,
2025) (Appeals Review Panel Decision), and associated guidance memoranda, MPEP
revisions, and the like. For example, MPEP § 2106.05(a) (per USPTO Memorandum,
Dec. 5, 2025, "Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parle Desjardins")
now reads, "When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid
oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the
specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100. See
also Ex Parle Desiardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals
Review Panel Decision) (precedential) ("Examiners and panels should not evaluate
claims at such a high level of generality" that potentially meaningful technical limitations
are dismissed without adequate explanation)." (underlining in memorandum to indicate
MPEP text additions)
In response the Examiner assert that in the facially sufficient analysis of the rejection
above the Examiner has followed the steps mentioned in the MPEP 2106.07. The
abstract idea has been identified and the additional elements in the claim, such as
“ acquiring …transaction data related to sales transactions in a plurality of data formats”; “outputting …the generated sales analysis information…” These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data (gathering data). Accessing or receiving data is very well understood, routine and conventional computer task activity; It represents insignificant extra solution activity. Mere data-gathering step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstaturory claim statutory In re Grams,888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Next, the additional elements “a server for a multiuser sales data analysis system; via a communication interface from a plurality of point-of-sale devices; in a storage unit; stored in the storage unit; to a user terminal via the communication interface”; “…for display to a system user by processing of…”; “the transaction data is acquired from each point-of-sale device as part of an inquiry for coupon information regarding a coupon to be dispensed from the point-of-sale device upon a closing of a sales transaction”, represent insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05 (g) or amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. The Examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. see the MPEP 2106.0S(h), 2106.05(f) and 2106.0S(g). A prima facie of unpatentability has been established.
Additionally, this case is not rejected under 101 only because the invention ability to run with high level technology, but also because the detail facially sufficient analysis provided above, where the Examiner looked both the instant claims and the specification to elaborate Examiner's facially sufficient analysis. The additional elements in the instant claims do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea identified above, as the additional elements do not: Improve another technology or technical field; Improve the functioning of a computer itself; Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field; Add meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment; Improve computer related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. (see MPEP 2106.05)
Further, applicant makes a loose argument to "a recent Appeals Review Panel (ARP)
rehearing decision in Ex parte Guillaume Desjardins", but the Examiner respectfully
disagrees. The Examiner did not oversimplified the instant claims. The instant claimed invention and the mentioned patent have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore they are not analogous. In this case the Examiner elaborated a complete a detailed facially sufficient analysis to establish a prima facie of unpatentability.
As the present claims include meaningful technical limitations (such as noted
above), and the present rejection performs analysis at "such a high level of generality"
that meaningful technical limitations have been dismissed without adequate explanation,
it is respectfully requested that the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
In response again, the Examiner asserts that it is not true that the Examiner dismissed meaningful technical limitations.
First of all, per MPEP 2106 an invention must have to comply with the Subject Matter Eligibility test under Alice framework, see also (2019 PEG), but also with the MPEP 2111 that provides that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim. It seems that applicant wants that the Examiner reads limitations from the specification into the claims.
Secondly, the rejection of the claims under 101 is maintained because the claims are directed to an abstract idea, which is a judicial exception. Next, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic computer components claimed to perform their basic functions of the invention. See complete and facially sufficient analysis of the rejection above, where the instant claims and their features have being considered in detail and not in a high-level of abstraction untethered from the claim language. Nonetheless, the Examiner found that according with high level of generality and conventional technology claimed, when construed, as broadly as reasonable, none of the limitations considered as an ordered combination, provides eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claim simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional technology. As such, claim 11 recites an abstract idea, which is patent-ineligible subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Microprocessor design for inteligent point-of-sale terminals”. IEEE. 1974.
This reference discloses “A point-of-sale (POS) terminal, besides serving as an ordinary isolated cash register, is also part of a retail data collection system. The system emphasis is on data collection, although minimal computational capability is also required. The rate of data input to this system is largely limited by the speed of the operator. These aspects influence terminal design. This article describes the capabilities of an existing terminal processor and compares them to a commercially available microprocessor chip.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MARIA VICTORIA VANDERHORST whose telephone number is (571)270-3604. The examiner can normally be reached on business hours from Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashraf Waseem can be reached on 571-270-3948. 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.
/MARIA V VANDERHORST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 4/4/2026