DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/2/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21-40 are directed to a system or method, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 21 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 31. Claim 21 recites the limitations of identifying vehicle for the purpose of returning an item.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Identifying a vehicle; monitoring signal transmitted from a store transmitter; detecting a zone; and initiating return of item – specifically, the claim recites: “identifying a vehicle that is used to return an item; monitoring a signal transmitted from… a store; detecting a defined zone according to the monitored signal; and initiating a return of the item”, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a system”, “a mobile communication device”, “a transmitter”, and “an application”, in claim 31, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim 21 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a system and a mobile communication device; a communication device such as a transmitter; software module and algorithm such as an application. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 21 and 31 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 21 and 31 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 21 and 31 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 22 discloses the limitation of receiving a selection, made by a consumer, of the item to be returned to the store, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 23 discloses the limitation of making a selection of the item to be returned to the store, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 24 discloses the limitation of monitoring a global location of the mobile communication device, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile communication device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 25 discloses the limitation of determining that the mobile communication device is in the defined zone outside of the store, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile communication device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 26 discloses the limitation of comparing a monitored global location of the mobile communication device to the defined zone, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile communication device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 27 discloses the limitation of presenting, via the mobile communication device, a notification to initiate the return, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile communication device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 28 discloses the limitation of comprising removing the notification if the mobile communication device leaves the defined zone before initiating the return, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile communication device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 29 discloses the limitation of starting a timer upon initiating the return, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 30 discloses the limitation of presenting an elapsed time since initiating the return, via the mobile communication device, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile communication device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 32 discloses the limitation of the application causes the mobile communication device to receive a selection, made by a consumer, of the item to be returned to the store, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile communication device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 33 discloses the limitation of the application causes the mobile communication device to make a selection of the item to be returned to the store, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile communication device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 34 discloses the limitation of the application causes the mobile communication device to monitor a global location of the mobile communication device, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile communication device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 35 discloses the limitation of the application causes the mobile communication device to determine that the mobile communication device is in the defined zone outside of the store, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile communication device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 36 discloses the limitation of , which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile communication device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 37 discloses the limitation of the application causes the mobile communication device to present, via the mobile communication device, a notification to initiate the return, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile communication device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 38 discloses the limitation of the application causes the mobile communication device to remove the notification if the mobile communication device leaves the defined zone before initiating the return, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile communication device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 39 discloses the limitation of the application causes the mobile communication device to start a timer upon initiating the return, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile communication device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 40 discloses the limitation of the application causes the mobile communication device to present an elapsed time since initiating the return, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile communication device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 21-40 are not patent-eligible.
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 21-40 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argue (20140040053) in view of Fitting (20130085889).
Regarding claim 21, Argue discloses
a method, comprising: via a mobile communication device:
detecting a defined zone according to the monitored signal
(“[0069] By comparing the location of the mobile electronic device 68 with the geographic perimeter or location of a store 104, the electronic receipts software may distinguish whether the mobile device 68 is inside of or near to the store (68A) or at a location outside of the store (68B). If the mobile electronic device 68 is inside of a store 104, the electronic receipts software may proceed to a second level of authentication as desired”).
See also FIG. 9: Item 104, "inside of store",
PNG
media_image1.png
744
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See also FIG. 10. Items 10 and 106, "mobile device near POS with QR Code", 11, Item 110 "Store Identification, Retail Location, POS Identification, Time and Date"
PNG
media_image2.png
497
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
initiating a return of the item
(“[0021] In selected embodiments, the returns process may involve the customer's mobile electronic device, such as a smart phone or tablet. The electronic receipt may be displayed on the mobile electronic device and the device may include software which allows the customer to make a return. The software may allow the customer to interface with the electronic receipt and with the POS system during the returns process… Upon interaction with the POS terminal, the software may then allow the customer to proceed with the return”).
(“[0063] It is desirable that certain features of the returns process cannot be completed unless the customer is present at a returns POS terminal at a store and is completing a returns transaction… As such, it is typically desirable to prevent a customer from completing a returns process or modifying an electronic receipt unless the customer is present at a returns POS terminal and is actually completing the returns process”).
(“[0084] the returns process may operate with the electronic returns software largely managing the electronic receipt 74. The software can be used to select the items, confirm the return, and update the electronic receipt. The returns associate can require that the customer complete the process within the electronic receipts software before completing the return process within the returns terminal to ensure that the customer's receipt 74 is correctly updated”).
Argue does not disclose, however, Fitting teaches
identifying a vehicle that is used to return an item; monitoring a signal transmitted from a transmitter of a store
(“[0028] a return process begins at block 302 where the consumer 210 begins the return process. In this process, the system 200 will provide the consumer 210 with at least one of a plurality of interface options to provide basic information to the system 200, and to identify the consumer 210 as well as the merchandise that the consumer 210 wishes to return and/or exchange. In this example, the consumer 210 is presented with a graphical user interface including user interface elements which allow the user the ability to login, search, scan, and/or otherwise locate the original purchase receipt and/or purchase data”).
(“[0024] by providing location information via a mobile device (e.g., a cell phone, mobile tablet, GPS device, vehicle identification system, etc.), or by any other suitable notification technique”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Argue to include identifying a vehicle that is used to return an item; monitoring a signal transmitted from a transmitter of a store as taught by Fitting to providing a consumer with the ability to expand area for return and/or exchange. See at least Fitting, ABSTRACT; "A method for allowing a user to manage at least one of a return or exchange of an ordered item. The method includes hosting an electronic database of information regarding item purchases, providing a user interface to allow a user to specify at least one return/exchange item, performing an authorization verification against the return/exchange of the item, providing to the user an identifier reflective of the authorization, and receiving and accepting the item(s) at the physical location within a predefined time limit".
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Argue and Fitting, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 21.
Argue further discloses
receiving a selection, made by a consumer, of the item to be returned to the store
(“[0080] The customer may select the desired items, such as by touching these items on the screen of the mobile electronic device 68 and confirm the desire to return these items. The items which are selected for return may be highlighted such as by being circled on the electronic receipt as indicated at 112”).
See also FIG. 13.
PNG
media_image3.png
692
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Argue and Fitting, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 21.
Argue further discloses
making a selection of the item to be returned to the store
(“[0080] The customer may select the desired items, such as by touching these items on the screen of the mobile electronic device 68 and confirm the desire to return these items. The items which are selected for return may be highlighted such as by being circled on the electronic receipt as indicated at 112”).
See also FIG. 13.
PNG
media_image3.png
692
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Argue and Fitting, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 21.
Argue further discloses
monitoring a global location of the mobile communication device
(“[0069] By comparing the location of the mobile electronic device 68 with the geographic perimeter or location of a store 104, the electronic receipts software may distinguish whether the mobile device 68 is inside of or near to the store (68A) or at a location outside of the store (68B). If the mobile electronic device 68 is inside of a store 104, the electronic receipts software may proceed to a second level of authentication as desired”).
See also FIG. 9: Item 104, "inside of store",
PNG
media_image1.png
744
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See also FIG. 10. Items 10 and 106, "mobile device near POS with QR Code", 11, Item 110 "Store Identification, Retail Location, POS Identification, Time and Date"
PNG
media_image2.png
497
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Argue and Fitting, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 21.
Argue does not disclose, however, Fitting further discloses
determining that the mobile communication device is in the defined zone outside of the store
(“[0046] For example, the store location 280 may be provided with curb-side and/or "valet"-type processing to quickly move the consumer through the process because the return/exchange has already been processed and authorized behind the scenes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Argue to include determining that the mobile communication device is in the defined zone outside of the store as taught by Fitting to providing a consumer with the ability to expand area for return and/or exchange. (see at least Fitting, ABSTRACT; "A method for allowing a user to manage at least one of a return or exchange of an ordered item. The method includes hosting an electronic database of information regarding item purchases, providing a user interface to allow a user to specify at least one return/exchange item, performing an authorization verification against the return/exchange of the item, providing to the user an identifier reflective of the authorization, and receiving and accepting the item(s) at the physical location within a predefined time limit").
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Argue and Fitting, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 21.
Argue does not disclose, however, Fitting further discloses
comparing a monitored global location of the mobile communication device to the defined zone
(“[0046] For example, the store location 280 may be provided with curb-side and/or "valet"-type processing to quickly move the consumer through the process because the return/exchange has already been processed and authorized behind the scenes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Argue to include comparing a monitored global location of the mobile communication device to the defined zone as taught by Fitting to providing a consumer with the ability to expand area for return and/or exchange. (see at least Fitting, ABSTRACT; "A method for allowing a user to manage at least one of a return or exchange of an ordered item. The method includes hosting an electronic database of information regarding item purchases, providing a user interface to allow a user to specify at least one return/exchange item, performing an authorization verification against the return/exchange of the item, providing to the user an identifier reflective of the authorization, and receiving and accepting the item(s) at the physical location within a predefined time limit").
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Argue and Fitting, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 21.
Argue does not disclose, however, Fitting further discloses
presenting, via the mobile communication device, a notification to initiate the return
(“[0011] a processing device 20, illustrated in the exemplary form of a computer system, is provided with executable instructions to, for example, provide a means for a consumer, e.g., a user, customer, etc., to access a vendor system server 68 and, among other things, schedule and/or manage the return and/or exchange of items at a retail location, schedule and/or manage return and/or exchange of the items, notify the retail location of the estimated arrival time of the consumer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Argue to include presenting, via the mobile communication device, a notification to initiate the return as taught by Fitting to providing a consumer with the ability to expand area for return and/or exchange. (see at least Fitting, ABSTRACT; "A method for allowing a user to manage at least one of a return or exchange of an ordered item. The method includes hosting an electronic database of information regarding item purchases, providing a user interface to allow a user to specify at least one return/exchange item, performing an authorization verification against the return/exchange of the item, providing to the user an identifier reflective of the authorization, and receiving and accepting the item(s) at the physical location within a predefined time limit").
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Argue and Fitting, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 21.
Argue does not disclose, however, Fitting further discloses
removing the notification if the mobile communication device leaves the defined zone before initiating the return
(“[0046] For example, the store location 280 may be provided with curb-side and/or "valet"-type processing to quickly move the consumer through the process because the return/exchange has already been processed and authorized behind the scenes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Argue to include presenting, removing the notification if the mobile communication device leaves the defined zone before initiating the return as taught by Fitting to providing a consumer with the ability to expand area for return and/or exchange. (see at least Fitting, ABSTRACT; "A method for allowing a user to manage at least one of a return or exchange of an ordered item. The method includes hosting an electronic database of information regarding item purchases, providing a user interface to allow a user to specify at least one return/exchange item, performing an authorization verification against the return/exchange of the item, providing to the user an identifier reflective of the authorization, and receiving and accepting the item(s) at the physical location within a predefined time limit").
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Argue and Fitting, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 21.
Argue does not disclose, however, Fitting further discloses
starting a timer upon initiating the return
(“[0020] Still further, in one example the authorization module 250 may gather information from the consumer 210 including the desired retail store location 280, as well as an estimated and/or prescheduled arrival time (e.g., an appointment) by the consumer 210 at the store location 280”).
(“0016] notifying the identified retail store location of the impending return and/or exchange, notifying the retail location of the consumer's estimated arrival, and/or speeding the consumer through the return exchange process once in the retail location by, for example, processing the return/exchange at a prescheduled time and/or in a predetermined time limit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Argue to include starting a timer upon initiating the return as taught by Fitting to providing a consumer with the ability to expand area for return and/or exchange. (see at least Fitting, ABSTRACT; "A method for allowing a user to manage at least one of a return or exchange of an ordered item. The method includes hosting an electronic database of information regarding item purchases, providing a user interface to allow a user to specify at least one return/exchange item, performing an authorization verification against the return/exchange of the item, providing to the user an identifier reflective of the authorization, and receiving and accepting the item(s) at the physical location within a predefined time limit").
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Argue and Fitting, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 21.
Argue does not disclose, however, Fitting further discloses
presenting an elapsed time since initiating the return, via the mobile communication device
(“[0020] Still further, in one example the authorization module 250 may gather information from the consumer 210 including the desired retail store location 280, as well as an estimated and/or prescheduled arrival time (e.g., an appointment) by the consumer 210 at the store location 280”).
(“0016] notifying the identified retail store location of the impending return and/or exchange, notifying the retail location of the consumer's estimated arrival, and/or speeding the consumer through the return exchange process once in the retail location by, for example, processing the return/exchange at a prescheduled time and/or in a predetermined time limit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Argue to include presenting an elapsed time since initiating the return, via the mobile communication device as taught by Fitting to providing a consumer with the ability to expand area for return and/or exchange. (see at least Fitting, ABSTRACT; "A method for allowing a user to manage at least one of a return or exchange of an ordered item. The method includes hosting an electronic database of information regarding item purchases, providing a user interface to allow a user to specify at least one return/exchange item, performing an authorization verification against the return/exchange of the item, providing to the user an identifier reflective of the authorization, and receiving and accepting the item(s) at the physical location within a predefined time limit").
Claim 31 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 21.
Claim 32 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 22.
Claim 33 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 23.
Claim 34 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 24.
Claim 35 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 25.
Claim 36 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 35.
Claim 37 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 27.
Claim 38 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 28.
Claim 39 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 29.
Claim 40 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 30.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Williams (20100131420) teaches a system configured and programmed to provide online stores eCommerce customers of an online store to return merchandise purchased from that store from within that online store.
Hammond (20090076870) teaches a system for collecting data at a merchant's point of return for use in processing a merchandise return transaction that is being requested by a customer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights