DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment and response filed on 04/16/2026.
Claims 1, 12, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Arguments and Assertions by the Applicant
Applicant’s arguments received 04/16/2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been updated to conform to current guidelines and maintained accordingly.
The relevant question is whether the claims do more than collect, store, display, and compare data to optimize financial objective on a generic computer. This does not appear to be the case.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and filtering data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. Moreover, the technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. Therefore the claims are not significantly more than recitations of a judicial exception. In summary, each step does no more than require a common computer to perform universal computer functions. Therefore, the claims are directed to using a computer as a tool to follow instructions.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of petitioner's method, system, and/or computer readable medium add nothing that is not already present when the steps reconsidered separately. Viewed as a whole, the method, system, and/or computer readable medium claims simply recite the concept of analyzing storing data in the form of digital data, comparing/categorizing data, and displaying the data.
The method, system, and/or computer readable medium claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of organizing and analyzing data using some unspecified, generic computer. Consequently, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As in TLI, Applicant’s claims are “not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combing the two.” See TLI Communications LLC v. A.V. Automotive, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The specification does not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two. The specification fails to provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominantly describes the system and methods in purely functional terms.” Id. "Instead, the claims, as noted, are simply directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner." Id.
The claims in this case fall into a familiar class of claims “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. The focus of the asserted claims, as illustrated by the claims, is on collecting information, analyzing it, displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and sending instruction to implement result. The outer limits of “abstract idea” need not be defined, nor at this stage exclude the possibility that any particular inventive means are to be found somewhere in the claims, to conclude that these claims focus on an abstract idea - and hence require stage-two analysis under §101. Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the courts have treated, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In a similar vein, the courts have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). In addition, merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In this case, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. This invention claims a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, processing that data, then displaying the results, without any particular or asserted inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
For stage 2 of the analysis, merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.
Referring to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A., the claims in this case do not even require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it. See, e.g., US Patent 8,401,710 B2 (Budhraja et. al.), col. 8, lines 51–62 (referring to existing phasor data sources); J.A. 6969–71 (describing workings and history of phasor data use); Electric Power Group Br. at 21–22; Reply Br. at 5 (new algorithms not claimed). As a result, the claims do not require an inventive set of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques that would generate new data. They do not invoke any novel inventive programming. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information—to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users, Reply Br. at 6; Electric Power Group Br. at 14–15—by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis.
With regard to claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 18, the common knowledge declared to be well-known in the art is hereby taken to be admitted prior art because the Applicant either failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE or failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE adequately. See MPEP §2144.03. To adequately traverse the examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE, the Applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE would be inadequate. Support for the Applicant’s assertion should be included.
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 non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 12 and 19):
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
receiving, by a cloud-based service, a request from a terminal to purchase a token to enable tipping of an employee of a store; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - fundamental economic principles or practices including business relations and following rules or instructions)
obtaining, by the cloud-based service, a unique identifier for the token; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - fundamental economic principles or practices including business relations and following rules or instructions)
registering, by the cloud-based service, the unique identifier and an associated monetary value in a database; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - fundamental economic principles or practices including business relations and following rules or instructions)
notifying, by the cloud-based service, the terminal that the unique identifier for the token can be issued; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - fundamental economic principles or practices including business relations and following rules or instructions)
restricting, by the cloud-based service, redemption of the token to employees of a retailer associated with the token by verifying, prior to authorizing redemption, that a user submitting a redemption request is an employee of the retailer associated with the token; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - fundamental economic principles or practices including business relations and following rules or instructions)
receiving, by the cloud-based service, a redemption request from a particular terminal including the unique identifier; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - fundamental economic principles or practices including business relations and following rules or instructions)
verifying, by the cloud-based service, the unique identifier is valid and active in the database; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - fundamental economic principles or practices including business relations and following rules or instructions)
issue the token with the unique identifier by printing the unique identifier and the associated monetary value on a physical object for physical delivery by a customer to the employee; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - fundamental economic principles or practices including business relations and following rules or instructions)
authorizing, by the cloud-based service, redemption of the associated monetary value associated with the unique identifier of the token; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - fundamental economic principles or practices including business relations and following rules or instructions)
updating, by the cloud-based service, a status of the unique identifier in the database to redeemed. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - fundamental economic principles or practices including business relations and following rules or instructions)
Additional dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20 do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 12 and 19):
…a terminal
…a system
…a processor
…a memory
…a self-service terminal
…a point-of-sale terminal.
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6, 12, 13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meltzer et al. (USPGP 2021/0233200), hereinafter MELTZER, in view of Pallakoff et al. (USPGP 2013/0333055 A1), hereinafter PALLAKOFF, and further in view of Higgins et al. (USPGP 2023/0162562 A1), hereinafter HIGGINS.
Claims 1, 12, and 19:
MELTZER as shown below discloses the following limitations:
receiving, by a cloud-based service, a request from a terminal to purchase a token…; (see at least paragraphs 0031, 0035)
obtaining, by the cloud-based service, a unique identifier for the token; (see at least paragraphs 0031, 0035)
registering, by the cloud-based service, the unique identifier and an associated monetary value in a database; (see at least paragraphs 0031, 0035)
notifying, by the cloud-based service, the terminal that the unique identifier for the token can be issued;
receiving, by the cloud-based service, a redemption request from a particular terminal including the unique identifier; (see at least paragraphs 0006, 0031, 0035)
verifying, by the cloud-based service, the unique identifier is valid and active in the database; (see at least paragraphs 0004, 0031, 0035)
authorizing, by the cloud-based service, redemption of the associated monetary value associated with the unique identifier of the token; (see at least paragraphs 0006, 0031, 0035)
updating, by the cloud-based service, a status of the unique identifier in the database to redeemed. (see at least paragraph 0047)
MELTZER does not specifically disclose a unique identifier for the token. However, PALLAKOFF, in at least paragraphs 0028, 0031, and 0037 does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of MELTZER with the technique of PALLAKOFF because, “It is desirable to provide improvements in technology than can manage transactions between a customer and a gaming house without using cash, while safely providing for redemption of non-cash tokens into fiat, and establishing immutable records of non-cash transactions available to provide transparency and trust in the network.” (MELTZER: paragraph 0005). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
The combination of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF does not specifically disclose the following limitations, but HIGGINS as shown does:
… to enable tipping of an employee of a store
restricting, by the cloud-based service, redemption of the token to employees of a retailer associated with the token by verifying, prior to authorizing redemption, that a user submitting a redemption request is an employee of the retailer associated with the token;
issue the token with the unique identifier by printing the unique identifier and the associated monetary value on a physical object for physical delivery by a customer to the employee;
See at least paragraphs 0010, 0027, 0034, and 0036. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF with the technique of HIGGINS because, “As casinos and other gaming venues move into a cashless world, the venue's systems may support keying off jackpots to the player's wagering account or back to the gaming system's credit meter. This results in a lack of physical cash being distributed to the player, even though a staff member may be involved during the jackpot process to collect the player's information in order to fill in the required jackpot tax forms. As a result, it becomes difficult for a player to tip staff members, and as a result, staff members may no longer offer players the level of service they typically expect. This may also create a serious issue with adoption of cashless features in casinos and other gaming venues as staff will have a disincentive, i.e., lower earnings due to lower tips, to promote cashless adoption, which presents a product challenge for the adoption of electronic cashless solutions. Hence, there is a need in the art for improved methods and systems for electronically transferring value between individuals in a cashless gaming venue solution..” (HIGGINS: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2, 13:
The combination of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. PALLAKOFF further discloses the following limitations:
wherein obtaining further comprises generating a unique serial number for printing on an object as the token.
wherein issuing further comprises:
printing a piece of paper with the unique identifier and the monetary value as the token; or
printing a label with the unique identifier and the monetary value as the token, wherein the label is placed on a unique object to use as the token.
See at least paragraphs 0018, 0028, 0033, and 0037. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of MELTZER with the technique of PALLAKOFF because, “It is desirable to provide improvements in technology than can manage transactions between a customer and a gaming house without using cash, while safely providing for redemption of non-cash tokens into fiat, and establishing immutable records of non-cash transactions available to provide transparency and trust in the network.” (MELTZER: paragraph 0005). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 3:
The combination of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MELTZER further discloses the following limitations:
wherein registering further comprises storing an active status and an expiration date for the token in the database.
See at least paragraphs 0043 and 0047.
Claim 4:
The combination of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. PALLAKOFF further discloses the following limitations:
wherein verifying further comprises checking that an expiration date associated with the unique identifier has not passed.
See at least paragraph 0015. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of MELTZER with the technique of PALLAKOFF because, “It is desirable to provide improvements in technology than can manage transactions between a customer and a gaming house without using cash, while safely providing for redemption of non-cash tokens into fiat, and establishing immutable records of non-cash transactions available to provide transparency and trust in the network.” (MELTZER: paragraph 0005). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 5:
The combination of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MELTZER further discloses the following limitations:
wherein authorizing further comprises verifying that a user requesting redemption is an employee of a retailer associated with the token.
See at least paragraph 0041.
Claims 6, 17:
The combination of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MELTZER further discloses the following limitations:
receiving, by the cloud-based service, a request to link the token to a customer loyalty account;
storing, by the cloud-based service, an association between the unique identifier and the customer loyalty account in the database.
See at least paragraphs 0006 and 0037.
Claim 9:
The combination of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MELTZER further discloses the following limitations:
receiving, by the cloud-based service, a report request from a requesting terminal;
generating, by the cloud-based service, a report of particular tokens redeemed by an employee;
transmitting, by the cloud-based service, the report to the requesting terminal.
See at least paragraphs 0038 and 0047.
Claim 15:
The combination of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MELTZER further discloses the following limitations:
wherein processing further comprises providing a cash equivalent to an employee who received the token from a customer.
See at least paragraphs 0006, 0031, 0041, and 0035.
Claim 16:
The combination of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MELTZER further discloses the following limitations:
wherein processing further comprises applying the monetary value to a purchase of a good by an employee who received the token from a customer.
See at least paragraphs 0006, 0031, 0041, and 0035.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS, and further in view of Hammad (USPGP 2014/00746537 A1), hereinafter HAMMAD.
Claim 14:
The combination of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HAMMAD further discloses the following limitations:
wherein issuing further comprises programming a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag with the unique identifier as the token,
wherein the RFID tag placed on a unique object to use as the token.
See at least paragraphs 0051, 0066, and 0191. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS with the technique of HAMMAD because, “Consumer transactions require a customer to select a product from a store shelf, and then to check them out at a checkout counter. Product information is entered into a point-of-sale terminal device, or the information is entered automatically by scanning an item barcode with an integrated barcode scanner, and the customer is usually provided with a number of payment options, such as cash, check, credit card or debit card. Once payment is made and approved, the point-of-sale terminal memorializes the transaction in the merchant's computer system, and a receipt is generated indicating the satisfactory consummation of the transaction.” (HAMMAD: paragraph 0005). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 20:
The combination of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HAMMAD further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the terminal is a self-service terminal or a point-of-sale terminal.
See at least paragraphs 0051, 0066, and 0191. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS with the technique of HAMMAD because, “Consumer transactions require a customer to select a product from a store shelf, and then to check them out at a checkout counter. Product information is entered into a point-of-sale terminal device, or the information is entered automatically by scanning an item barcode with an integrated barcode scanner, and the customer is usually provided with a number of payment options, such as cash, check, credit card or debit card. Once payment is made and approved, the point-of-sale terminal memorializes the transaction in the merchant's computer system, and a receipt is generated indicating the satisfactory consummation of the transaction.” (HAMMAD: paragraph 0005). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 18 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS and further in view of Applicant’s own admissions, hereinafter AOA.
Claims 7, 8, 18:
The combination of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS does not specifically disclose:
receiving, by the cloud-based service, a request to cancel the token within a predetermined time period after purchase;
updating, by the cloud-based service, the status of the unique identifier in the database to cancelled;
authorizing, by the cloud-based service, a refund of the associated monetary value associated with the unique identifier.
detecting, by the cloud-based service, that an expiration date associated with a particular unique identifier has passed;
updating, by the cloud-based service, a particular status of the particular unique identifier in the database to expired;
allocating, by the cloud-based service, a particular monetary value associated with the particular unique identifier to a pool for distribution among employees.
receiving, by the terminal, a cancellation request for the token within a predetermined time period after purchase; transmitting, by the terminal, the cancellation request to the cloud-based service;
processing, by the terminal, a refund of the monetary value associated with the unique identifier upon authorization from the cloud-based service.
However, the Examiner accepts AOA that it is old and well known in the ecommerce arts to adhere to expiration dates, and update the status of a product as well as offering refunds . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS with the technique of processing expired products because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 10, 11:
The combination of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS does not specifically disclose:
receiving, by the cloud-based service, a reissue request for a lost token associated with a customer loyalty account;
obtaining, by the cloud-based service, a new unique identifier for a replacement token;
updating, by the cloud-based service, the status of the unique identifier to inactive;
registering, by the cloud-based service, the new unique identifier with the associated monetary value and providing the new unique identifier for use with of the replacement token.
receiving, by the cloud-based service, a recycling request for an inactive token;
updating, by the cloud-based service the unique identifier from inactive to available for purchase and use.
However, the Examiner accepts AOA that it is old and well known in the ecommerce arts to reissue/recycle lost or stolen products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of MELTZER/PALLAKOFF/HIGGINS with the technique of processing lost or stolen digital merchandise because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
ORACLE. “Interconnect and Automate Your Organization’s Ecosystem.” (2022). Retrieved online 01/08/2026. https://www.oracle.com/blockchain/cloud-platform/
Token Alliance. “Understanding Digital Tokens.” (Aug 31, 2018). Retrieved online 01/08/2026. https://lowellmilkeninstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Understanding-Digital-Tokens.pdf
Garcia et al. “Crypto, tokens and DeFi: navigating the regulatory landscape.” ( May 2023). Retrieved online 01/08/2026. https://www.bis.org/fsi/publ/insights49.pdf
Foreign Art:
MAKRIDES. “Computer-based System For Payments Using Centralized Payment System And Distributed Ledger Has Processor That Processes Flat Currency Withdrawal Request By Using Bank Application Programming Interface/automated Clearing House Network.” (WO 2020/142412 A1)
SAVANAH et al. “Computer-implemented Method Of Determining Validity Of Token, Involves Querying Peer-to-peer Distributed Ledger To Determine Whether Authenticated Transaction Associated With Token Is Identified.” (WO 2017/178955 A1)
LAPORTE et al. “Device For Augmenting Print Data Stream Sent From Point-of-sale Terminal To Epson-compatible/point Of Sale Printer, Has Output Port For Sending Data Stream To Printer To Cause Printer To Print Transaction Record That Includes Encoded Image.” (WO 2012/167361 A1)
Applicant’s amendment filed on 04/16/2026 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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)
Prosecution Insights