DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 10/23/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: receive point of sale and receipt data and store data, and generate display information from data. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically sales activities and managing personal behavior, including following instructions, as well as mental processes, including concepts performed in the mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: transmitting information to a user terminal via a network communication interface, a processor, data aggregation server, point of sale devices, and receipt server, individually and in combination, merely use a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 11 and 19 recite POS devices generating POS data for sales transactions of a single organization, and receipt data is for sales transactions of multiple organizations. Data generation is seen as part of said abstract ideas.
Claims 3 and 12 recite users of user terminal, and claims 4 and 13 do as well, as do claims 5 and 14. Claims 6 and 15 recite data generation and data content and data storage. This is seen as part of the abstract ideas embodied in said devices. Claim 7 recites a server for sending receipt data. This is seen as using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas. Claims 8, 16 and 20 recite sending data, which is well known according to the MPEP; they also recite sending coupon information based on inquiry, said inquiry including POS data for a sales transaction. Claims 9 and 17 recite storing said data. This is seen as part of said abstract ideas.
For these reasons the claims are not subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nissan (US 2012/0084135).
Claims 1, 10 and 18. Nissan teaches an information processing system, comprising:
a server including: (para. 5 database and server)
a communication interface connectable to a network; (para. 64 network transmission by systems)
a storage device; and (para. 5 database)
a processor configured to: (para. 39 POS terminal running software; para. 5 server)
receive point-of-sale data from a plurality point-of-sale devices via the network and store the point-of-sale data in the storage device; (para. 39 multiple POS data stored in server database)
receive receipt data from an electronic receipt server via the network and store the receipt data in the storage device; (para. 50 submit receipts to system database) (paras. 76 and 77 showing individual database servers and remote terminals)
generate display information based on stored point-of-sale data; (para. 45 showing access UI for reports on said data)
generate display information based on stored receipt data; (para. 45 showing access UI for reports on said data)
generate display information based on both the stored point-of-sale data and the stored receipt data; and (para. 45 showing access UI for reports on said data)
transmit generated display information to a user terminal via the network. (para. 45 showing remote access)
Claims 2, 11 and 19. Nissan teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of point-of-sale devices generate the point-of-sale data for sales transactions of a single organization, and (paragraphs 66 and 67 showing organization having point of sale systems)
the receipt data is for sales transactions of multiple organizations. (para. 86 showing multiple organizations sharing data in system)
Claims 3 and 12. Nissan teaches the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the user terminal is operated by the single organization. (para. 69 showing organization having access and account)
Claims 4 and 13. Nissan teaches the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the user terminal is operated by an entity other than the single organization. (para. 58 showing third party vendor having access)
Claims 5 and 14. Nissan teaches the information processing system according to claim 4, the entity is a data analysis vendor granted use authority by the single organization. (para. 46 showing third party analysis users)
Claims 6 and 15. Nissan teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of point-of-sale devices generate the point-of-sale data for sales transactions of multiple retailers, (para. 39 multiple merchants providing POS records)
the receipt data is for sales transactions of the multiple retailers, and (para. 39 multiple merchants providing POS records, including receipts)
the point-of-sale data is stored in association with a retailer identification identifying a specific retailer in the multiple retailers and a user authority level providing access permission to specific users of the user terminal. (para. 55 showing merchant ID and access code)
Claim 7. Nissan teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising: the electronic receipt server. (paras. 76 and 77 showing individual database servers and remote terminals)
Claims 8, 16 and 20. Nissan teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
send coupon information to a point-of-sale device based on coupon inquiry from the point-of-sale device, the coupon inquiry including point-of-sale data for a sales transaction at the point-of-sale device. (para. 65 showing coupon retrieval from POS during a transaction by querying database for comparable and eligible offers)
Claims 9 and 17. Nissan teaches the information processing system according to claim 8, wherein the point-of-sale data for the sales transaction included in the coupon inquiry is then stored in the storage device. (para. 114 associating coupon with transaction data stored)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights