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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 (and 2), 3, 4, 5 (and 6), 7, 8 (9 and 13), 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12, 13, 17, 19, 14, 1, 2, 6, 10, 3 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,427. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because representative patent method claims 12, 1, and 20 requires the additional elements (See the highlighted elements shown in the table below) not required by representative application method claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively. However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The claims recite common subject matter;
Whereby representative application claims 1, 8, and 15 which recite the open-ended transitional phrase "comprising", do not preclude the additional elements recited by representative patent claims 12, 1, and 20 respectively, and
Whereby the elements of representative application claims 1, 8, and 15 are fully anticipated by representative patent claims 12, 1, and 20 respectively, and anticipation is "the ultimate or epitome of obviousness". (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
US Application No. 18/931,854
US Patent No. 12,165,427
Claim 1. A computer system for capturing a receipt associated with a purchase of an item, the computer system comprising:
Claim 12. A computer system for capturing a receipt associated with a purchase of an item, the system comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor configured to:
at least one memory; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor programmed to:
in response to a customer purchasing an item using a customer account, determine that the customer account has a receipt capturing tool associated with the customer account;
in response to determining that a receipt capturing tool is inactivated, cause a first prompt to be displayed on a user computing device requesting whether a customer wishes to activate the receipt capturing tool;
in response to determining that the receipt capturing tool is inactivated, cause a first prompt to be displayed on a user computing device requesting whether the customer wishes to activate the receipt capturing tool;
in response to the customer selecting to activate the receipt capturing tool, automatically capture the receipt associated with the item purchased by the customer; and
in response to the customer selecting to activate the receipt capturing tool, automatically capture the receipt associated with the purchased item; and
in response to the customer selecting to not activate the receipt capturing tool, cause a second prompt to be displayed on the user computing device requesting the customer to manually capture a digital copy of the receipt associated with the purchased item.
in response to the customer selecting to not activate the receipt capturing tool, cause a second prompt to be displayed on the user computing device requesting the customer to manually capture a digital copy of the receipt associated with the purchased item.
Claim 8. A computer-implemented method for capturing a receipt associated with
a purchase of an item, the method implemented using one or more local or remote processors,
servers, sensors, and/or transceivers, and at least one memory, the method comprising:
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method for conducting a receipt capturing process, the method implemented using one or more local or remote processors, servers, sensors, and/or transceivers, the method comprising: in response to a customer purchasing an item using a customer account, determining that the customer account has a receipt capturing tool associated with the customer account;
in response to determining that a receipt capturing tool is inactivated, causing a first prompt to be displayed on a user computing device requesting whether a customer wishes to
activate the receipt capturing tool;
in response to determining that the receipt capturing tool is inactivated, causing a first prompt to be displayed on a user computing device requesting whether the customer wishes to activate the receipt capturing tool;
in response to the customer selecting to activate the receipt capturing tool, automatically capturing the receipt associated with the item purchased by the customer; and
in response to the customer selecting to activate the receipt capturing tool, automatically capturing the receipt associated with the purchased item; and
in response to the customer selecting to not activate the receipt capturing tool, causing a second prompt to be displayed on the user computing device requesting the customer to manually capture a digital copy of the receipt associated with the purchased item.
in response to the customer selecting to not activate the receipt capturing tool, causing a second prompt to be displayed on the user computing device requesting the customer to manually capture a digital copy of the receipt associated with the purchased item.
Claim 15. At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor of a computer system for capturing a receipt associated with a purchase of an item, cause the at least one processor to:
Claim 20. At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
in response to a customer purchasing an item using a customer account, determine that the customer account has a receipt capturing tool associated with the customer account;
in response to determining that a receipt capturing tool is inactivated, cause a first prompt to be displayed on a user computing device requesting whether a customer wishes to activate the receipt capturing tool;
in response to determining that the receipt capturing tool is inactivated, cause a first prompt to be displayed on a user computing device requesting whether the customer wishes to activate the receipt capturing tool;
in response to the customer selecting to activate the receipt capturing tool, automatically capture the receipt associated with the item purchased by the customer; and
in response to the customer selecting to activate the receipt capturing tool, automatically capture the receipt associated with the purchased item; and
in response to the customer selecting to not activate the receipt capturing tool, cause a second prompt to be displayed on the user computing device requesting the customer to manually capture a digital copy of the receipt associated with the purchased item.
in response to the customer selecting to not activate the receipt capturing tool, cause a second prompt to be displayed on the user computing device requesting the customer to manually capture a digital copy of the receipt associated with the purchased item.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at (571)272-9523. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights