DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the response to the amendment filed on 05/06/2026. Claims 1-10 and 12-18 have been amended. Claims 1-10 and 12-18 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation “a registration unit configured to register items being purchased by a purchaser in a sales transaction; a price calculation unit configured to calculate a transaction price to be paid by the purchaser for the items registered by the registration unit in the sales transaction; a reception unit configured to receive codes of coupons to be used by the purchaser in the sales transaction, transmit the coupon codes to a coupon server and receive from the coupon server in response thereto coupon data associated with each of the coupon codes, the coupon data including a coupon classification and a coupon benefit, the coupon classification indicating a first-type coupon and a second-type coupon; a first application unit configured to apply the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon to one or more of the items that have been registered in the sales transaction and are a target of the first-type coupon, upon receipt of the coupon data from the coupon server; and a second application unit configured to not apply the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon upon receipt of the coupon data from the coupon server, and apply the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon to the transaction price after the transaction price has been adjusted to reflect the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon” which has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder registration / price calculation / reception / first application / second application “unit configured to” coupled with functional language “register items being purchased by a purchaser in a sales transaction / calculate a transaction price to be paid by the purchaser for the items registered by the registration unit in the sales transaction / receive codes of coupons to be used by the purchaser in the sales transaction, transmit the coupon codes to a coupon server and receive from the coupon server in response thereto coupon data associated with each of the coupon codes, the coupon data including a coupon classification and a coupon benefit, the coupon classification indicating a first-type coupon and a second-type coupon / apply the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon to one or more of the items that have been registered in the sales transaction and are a target of the first-type coupon, upon receipt of the coupon data from the coupon server / not apply the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon upon receipt of the coupon data from the coupon server, and apply the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon to the transaction price after the transaction price has been adjusted to reflect the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Dependent claim 4 recites the limitation “an application status notification unit configured to output a notification indicating whether the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon has been applied to the transaction price by the second application unit” which has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder application status notification “unit configured to” coupled with functional language “output a notification indicating whether the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon has been applied to the transaction price by the second application unit” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Dependent claim 5 recites the limitation “an unavailable coupon notification unit configured to output a notification indicating that the coupon benefit associated with the second coupon was not applied when the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon cannot be applied to the sales transaction” which has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder determination “unit configured to” coupled with functional language “output a notification indicating that the coupon benefit associated with the second coupon was not applied when the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon cannot be applied to the sales transaction” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1, 4, and 5 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The Examiner interprets the units “registration / price calculation / reception / first application / second application / application status notification / unavailable coupon notification” to be “implemented as information processing executed by the processor 11 according to a transaction processing program” or sub-units of the functioning hardware (See ¶¶ [0058]-[0066] of the Applicant's originally filed specification).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: In a test for patent subject matter eligibility, claims 1-10 and 12-18 are found to be in accordance with Step 1 (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility), as they are related to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-10 recite a system and claims 12-18 recite a computer-readable medium. When assessed under Step 2A, Prong I, claims 1-10 and 12-18 are found to be directed towards an abstract idea. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Step 2A, Prong I: Under Step 2A, Prong I, claims 1, 6, and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as they all recite a judicial exception. Claims 1, 6, and 12 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea including “register items being purchased by a purchaser in a sales transaction; calculate a transaction price to be paid by the purchaser for the items registered in the sales transaction; receive coupon codes of coupons to be used by the purchaser in the sales transaction; transmit the coupon codes and receive in response thereto coupon data associated with each of the coupon codes, the coupon data including a coupon classification and a coupon benefit, the coupon classification indicating a first-type coupon and a second-type coupon; apply the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon to one or more of the items that have been registered in the ales transaction and are a target of the first- type coupon, upon receipt of the coupon data; and not apply the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon upon receipt of the coupon data, and apply the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon to the transaction price after the transaction price has been adjusted to reflect the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupons.” These further limitations are not seen as any more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 6, and 12 recite additional limitations including “to/from the coupon server; transmit the coupon codes to a coupon server and receive from the coupon server in response thereto coupon data associated with each of the coupon codes.” The claims are considered to be an abstract idea under certain methods of organizing human activity because the claims are directed to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) such as applying a first and second type of coupon benefit based on received information corresponding to a first or second type of coupon benefit. The claims are also considered to be an abstract idea under Mental Processes such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the claims are directed to registering data (i.e. items being purchased); calculating data (i.e. transaction price); receiving data (i.e. coupons to be used); and applying data (i.e. coupon benefit corresponding to a first/second type of coupon). The claims are also considered to be an abstract idea under Mathematical Concepts such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations because the claims are directed to calculating a transaction price to be paid by the purchaser for the items registered in the sales transaction). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong I, claims 1, 6, and 12 are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong II: Step 2A, Prong II is to determine whether any claim recites any additional element that integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application. Claims 1, 6, and 12 recite additional limitations including “to/from the coupon server; transmit the coupon codes to a coupon server and receive from the coupon server in response thereto coupon data associated with each of the coupon codes.” The additional limitations reciting – “to/from the coupon server” are seen as adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, alone, and in combination, these additional elements are seen as using a computer or tool to perform an abstract idea, adding insignificant-extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. They do no more than link the judicial exception (i.e. applying a first or second type of coupon benefit based on received information corresponding to a first or second type of coupon benefit) to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. coupon server) and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts decided that although the additional elements did limit the use of the abstract idea, the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and this fails to add an inventive concept to the claims (See Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC,). Under Step 2A, Prong II, these claims remain directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 6, and 12 recite additional limitations including “to/from the coupon server; transmit the coupon codes to a coupon server and receive from the coupon server in response thereto coupon data associated with each of the coupon codes.” The additional limitations reciting – “to/from the coupon server” do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application because of the analysis provided in Step 2A, Prong II. Claims 1, 6, and 12 also recite additional limitations – “transmit the coupon codes to a coupon server and receive from the coupon server in response thereto coupon data associated with each of the coupon codes.” However, the courts have noted that “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” is a computer function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional (See: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);). The courts have also noted that “Storing and retrieving information in memory,” is a computer function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional (See: Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;). Therefore, merely transmitting/receiving data over a network to a server do not integrate the claims into a practical application because they are seen as adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 1, 6, and 12 do not include additional elements or a combination of elements that result in the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements listed amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the applicant’s specifications describe “central processing unit”, ¶¶ [0032] [0033] [0058], for implementing the units/server, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Furthermore, there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field, and there is no transformation of subject matter into a different state. Under Step 2B in a test for patent subject matter eligibility, these claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 13-18 further recite the system of claims 1 and 6, and computer-readable medium of claim 18, respectively. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 13-18 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea:
Under Step 2A, Prong I, these additional claims only further narrow the abstract idea set forth in claims 1, 6, and 12. For example, claims 2-5, 7-10, and 13-18 further describe the limitations for applying a first or second type of coupon benefit based on received information corresponding to a first or second type of coupon benefit – which is only further narrowing the scope of the abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Under Step 2A, Prong II, for dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 13-18, there are no additional elements introduced. Thus, they do not present integration into a practical application, or amount to significantly more.
Under Step 2B, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field, and there is no transformation of subject matter into a different state. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional claims do not provide any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Under Step 2B, these claims 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,346,874 to Boal in view of U.S. Patent 11,328,313 to Kendall.
Claims 1-5, 6-10, and 12-18 are system and computer-readable media claims, respectively, with substantially indistinguishable features between each group. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Office has grouped the common method, system and non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims in applying applicable prior art.
With respect to Claim 1:
Boal teaches:
A commodity sales data processing device comprising: a registration unit configured to register items being purchased by a purchaser in a sales transaction (i.e. receiving input of items or registering items to be purchased by user in a sales transaction) (Boal: Col. 8 Lines 41-56 “Block 310 comprises receiving input specifying one or more items for purchase by a customer and, optionally, one or more payment mechanisms. For example, the input may be received by a cash register or other terminal at a checkout stand in a brick-and-mortar store, and/or a retail server, payment server, or other server to which such input has been relayed. The input specifying the one or more items may involve, for instance, scanning Universal Product Code ("UPC") symbols, detecting RFID or Near-Field Communication ("NFC") tags, weighing products, entering item identifiers via a keyboard, selecting items via a touchpad, and so on. The input specifying the one or more payment mechanisms may include, for instance, swiping a credit card through a magnetic reader, detecting an RFID or NFC tag, the tendering of cash or a credit card, a transfer of funds via a mobile payment application on a mobile device, and so on.”);
a price calculation unit configured to calculate a transaction price to be paid by the purchaser for the items registered by the registration unit in the sales transaction (i.e. calculate total transaction price, and discounted price for each item that has coupon applied) (Boal: Fig. 1 and Col. 8 Lines 57-67 “Block 320 comprises performing, or causing the performance of, a transaction in which the specified one or more items are purchased, optionally using the one or more provided payment mechanisms. For instance, the entity receiving the input of block 310 may calculate a total price for the transaction based on the one or more items, and then send a request to one or more payment providers to transfer the relevant funds to the retailer. Once the one or more payment providers have responded with an acknowledgment that the transfer has been approved, the entity may consider the transaction complete.”);
a reception unit configured to receive coupon codes of coupons to be used by the purchaser in the sales transaction, (i.e. receive selection of coupons to be used by user for transaction) (Boal: Col. 6 Lines 50-65 “In other embodiments, coupon information 151-154 may include additional information about the available coupon offers, such as a list of eligible products and store locations, expiration dates, discount amounts, and other terms. In an embodiment, coupon information 151-154 may include controls associated with each indicated coupon offer, such as a "Print now" button or "Save to Card" button, by which the customer may immediately download, print, and/or save a coupon for the indicated offer. In an embodiment, coupon information 151-154 may be part of a form comprising a checklist or pull-down menu of coupon offers and controls for printing, saving, or otherwise accessing coupons for any offer that the customer selects via the form. In an embodiment, coupon information 151-154 may indicate to the customer coupons that have automatically been added to the customers' account in response to the transaction.”),
transmit the coupon codes to a coupon server and receive from the coupon server in response thereto coupon data associated with each of the coupon codes, the coupon data including a coupon classification and a coupon benefit, the coupon classification indicating a first-type coupon and a second-type coupon (i.e. coupon distribution codes are transmitted/received from coupon server in response to qualifying terms/conditions of coupons, wherein coupon data indicates item level type of discount and payment method type of discount) (Boal: Col. 17 Lines 9-25 “In an embodiment, retail server 540 comprises executable logic similar to that of the coupon server for generating coupons. For example, coupon distributor 515 may provide one or more libraries of coupon distribution code for retailer 545 to utilize in retail server 540. As a condition of executing such logic, retail server 540 is configured to communicate periodically via an application program interface with coupon server 510, via which coupon server 510 provides retail server 540 with the coupon data necessary for retail server 540 to generate coupons. For example, coupon server 510 may provide retail server 540 with terms of coupon offers for which customers of retail server 540 are currently eligible, instructions for generating a unique coupon identifier for each coupon offer, and/or applicable distribution limits and parameters. Retail server 540 is further configured to report distributions to coupon server 510 on a periodic basis.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 6 Lines 19-38 “Coupon information 151-152 is intermingled within item list 140. Specifically, coupon offer link 151 is displayed after item 142 and coupon offer link 152 is displayed after item 145. As depicted, the coupon offer(s) associated with links 151 and 152 are selected at random. However, in other embodiments the offers associated with coupon information 151-152 may have been selected for inclusion in email 100 based on items 142 and 145, respectively. Coupon information 153 is displayed in association with payment information 190, and the offer associated therewith may have been selected for inclusion in all receipts provided via email. Alternatively, in an embodiment, coupon information 153 may have been selected for inclusion in email 100 because of the payment method chosen by the customer. Coupon information 154 is displayed at the end of the email, and the corresponding offer may have been selected for any of a number of reasons as discussed herein. In other embodiments, coupon information 151-154 may be entirely intermingled with the electronic receipt 130, or displayed entirely separate from the electronic receipt 130.”);
a first application unit configured to apply the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon to one or more of the items that have been registered in the sales transaction and are a target of the first-type coupon, upon receipt of the coupon data from the coupon server (i.e. applying first set of coupons to items upon receipt of coupon data from coupon server, wherein the coupon benefit is associated with a target item registered in transaction) (Boal: Col. 28 Lines 48-61 “In an embodiment, the terms of each of the digital coupons are compared to various properties of the first set of one or more items in the transaction, and it is determined that the first set of one or more coupons are eligible for use in the transaction. In an embodiment, the eligibility of the first set of one or more digital coupons may have been determined in the identification process of block 1040. For example, when querying a retail server or coupon server, a terminal may include transaction details such as a description of the first set of one or more items. When returning the digital coupons in block 1040, a coupon server or retail server may limit the returned digital coupons to only those that are eligible for use in the transaction, based on these transaction details.”).
Boal does not explicitly disclose a second application unit configured to not apply the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon upon receipt of the coupon data from the coupon server, and apply the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon to the transaction price after the transaction price has been adjusted to reflect the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon.
However, Kendall further discloses a second application unit configured to not apply the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon upon receipt of the coupon data from the coupon server, and apply the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon to the transaction price after the transaction price has been adjusted to reflect the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon (i.e. shipping and handling discount is not applied upon receipt of coupon data from coupon server but is applied after applying a first type of discount or instant cash discount reflecting a change in transaction price. In other words, the shipping and handling discount is not applied, as can be seen in Fig. 5B, but is applied in Fig. 5C after the instant cash discount, of Fig. 5B, has been applied) (Kendall: Figs. 5A-5C and Cols. 35-36 Lines 54-12 “Discount pane 500A illustrates an example price plus discount for a discount transaction. A discount transaction cost 507A is presented for items included in the discount transaction, which may be based on a determined application of a set of discounts for one or more transactions with respective merchants. An original cost 509A, such as without the application of a set of discounts may be displayed along with the savings 511A. In tum, the user may elect to effect a purchase 515 for the items. As shown in discount pane 500B of FIG. 5B, a discount model may generate an updated discount transaction cost 507B, such as based on a change in a user optioned shipping method. A discount model may update the original cost 509B and savings 511B along with the discount transaction cost 507B based on the option selection ( e.g., faster shipping for $5 over free shipping). In tum, the user may elect to effect a purchase 515 for the items with the different option configuration based on the discount transaction cost 507B. As shown in discount pane 500C of FIG. 5C, one or more discount types may be indicated based on option selections. For example, discount pate S00C indicates an instant cash back 513C and a total savings based on the instance cash back and shipping and handling discount, relative to the original cost 509C. As with the above examples, a user may elect to effect a purchase for the item based on the discount transaction cost 507C.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to add Kendall’s second application unit configured to not apply the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon upon receipt of the coupon data from the coupon server, and apply the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon to the transaction price after the transaction price has been adjusted to reflect the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon to Boal’s first application unit configured to apply the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon to one or more of the items that have been registered in the sales transaction and are a target of the first-type coupon, upon receipt of the coupon data from the coupon server. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order for “optimizing the combination of inputs to an online checkout process, e.g., items to be purchased, shipping configuration, potentially stacked discounts, and gift-card balances.” (Kendall: Col. 5 Lines 20-23).
With respect to Claims 6 and 12:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 1. Claim 6 recites “A commodity sales data processing device comprising: a storage memory unit; a communication interface connectable to a coupon server; a touch panel interface connectable to a touch panel; a scanner interface connectable to a scanner; and a processor configured to:” (Boal: Col. 9 Lines 9-32) perform the steps of system claim 1. Claim 12 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions which when executed by a processor of a commodity sales data processing devices causes the processor to perform a method comprising:” (Boal: Col. 48 Lines 47-57) perform the steps of system claim 1. Claims 6 and 12 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 1. Therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 2:
Boal teaches:
The commodity sales data processing device according to claim 1, wherein the coupon codes to be used by the purchaser are received by the reception unit after the registration of items by the registration unit has been completed (i.e. receive input of items then query server for coupons eligible for items) (Boal: Col. 27 Lines 45-61 “Block 1025 comprises receiving input specifying a first set of one or more items for purchase in the first transaction and, optionally, one or more payment mechanisms. The input may be received in the same manner as the input of block 310. Block 1025 may occur at any time relative to block 1020. At block 1030, at least partially responsive to receiving the first input via the interface, the flow determines whether the first customer identifier is associated with a known customer identity. For example, upon receiving the first customer identifier, the terminal may query another computer such as a retail server or coupon server using the first customer identifier. The computer may respond with an indication that the first customer identifier corresponds to a known customer identity. As another example, the retail server may query another computer using the first customer identifier.”).
With respect to Claims 7 and 13:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 2. Claims 7 and 13 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 2. Therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 3:
Boal teaches:
The commodity sales data processing device according to claim 2, wherein the second application unit is configured to store the coupon data associated with the second- type coupon with an indication of a holding state (i.e. user is able to store/save coupons) (Boal: Col. 6 Lines 50-65 “In other embodiments, coupon information 151-154 may include additional information about the available coupon offers, such as a list of eligible products and store locations, expiration dates, discount amounts, and other terms. In an embodiment, coupon information 151-154 may include controls associated with each indicated coupon offer, such as a "Print now" button or "Save to Card" button, by which the customer may immediately download, print, and/or save a coupon for the indicated offer. In an embodiment, coupon information 151-154 may be part of a form comprising a checklist or pull-down menu of coupon offers and controls for printing, saving, or otherwise accessing coupons for any offer that the customer selects via the form. In an embodiment, coupon information 151-154 may indicate to the customer coupons that have automatically been added to the customers' account in response to the transaction.”).
Boal does not explicitly disclose after the transaction price has been adjusted to reflect the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon by the first application unit, the second application unit checks whether any coupon data associated with the second-type coupon is stored with an indication of the holding state, and then applies the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupons stored with the indication of the holding state to the transaction price.
However, Kendall further discloses after the transaction price has been adjusted to reflect the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon by the first application unit, the second application unit checks whether any coupon data associated with the second-type coupon is stored with an indication of the holding state, and then applies the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupons stored with the indication of the holding state to the transaction price (i.e. after applying a first type of discount reflecting a change in transaction price, the system determines additional discounts corresponding to a second type such as shipping and handling discount, then user selects a different combination of discounts from the determined available discounts in repository or coupons stored with the indication of the holding state, and second discount is additionally applied to transaction) (Kendall: Figs. 5A-5C and Cols. 35-36 Lines 54-12 “Discount pane 500A illustrates an example price plus discount for a discount transaction. A discount transaction cost 507A is presented for items included in the discount transaction, which may be based on a determined application of a set of discounts for one or more transactions with respective merchants. An original cost 509A, such as without the application of a set of discounts may be displayed along with the savings 511A. In tum, the user may elect to effect a purchase 515 for the items. As shown in discount pane 500B of FIG. 5B, a discount model may generate an updated discount transaction cost 507B, such as based on a change in a user optioned shipping method. A discount model may update the original cost 509B and savings 511B along with the discount transaction cost 507B based on the option selection ( e.g., faster shipping for $5 over free shipping). In tum, the user may elect to effect a purchase 515 for the items with the different option configuration based on the discount transaction cost 507B. As shown in discount pane 500C of FIG. 5C, one or more discount types may be indicated based on option selections. For example, discount pate S00C indicates an instant cash back 513C and a total savings based on the instance cash back and shipping and handling discount, relative to the original cost 509C. As with the above examples, a user may elect to effect a purchase for the item based on the discount transaction cost 507C.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 11 Lines 3-27 “Embodiments of the repository 180 may store data on which various models operate and store data which various models generate. Additionally, the repository 180 may store data which the discount server 170 may provide, or provided results based on, to one or more user device 105, such as via API 173. For example, the repository 180 may store data amount items and discounts, associations between items and discounts, which merchants provide which items, which discounts are applicable to which merchants, and so on in different types of data structures. The various data structure may include information applicable to determining associations between an item available from at least one merchant and at least one discount of a given discount type for the item. In various example embodiments disclosed here, the various data structures include information applicable to determining associations between an item available at a merchant and multiple (e.g., two or more) discount types. For example, the various data structures may indicate availability of one or more discounts of a respective type with a merchant and to which items provided by a merchant those discounts, including, but not limited to discount codes, affiliate links, available stored value or gift cards, and the like, may be applied. Information like that described above may be stored in data structures of different records maintained by the discount server 170 within the repository 180.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to add Kendall’s after the transaction price has been adjusted to reflect the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon by the first application unit, the second application unit checks whether any coupon data associated with the second-type coupon is stored with an indication of the holding state, and then applies the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupons stored with the indication of the holding state to the transaction price to Boal’s first application unit configured to apply the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon to one or more of the items that have been registered in the sales transaction and are a target of the first-type coupon, upon receipt of the coupon data from the coupon server. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order for “optimizing the combination of inputs to an online checkout process, e.g., items to be purchased, shipping configuration, potentially stacked discounts, and gift-card balances.” (Kendall: Col. 5 Lines 20-23).
With respect to Claims 8 and 14:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 3. Claims 8 and 14 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 3. Therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 4:
Boal teaches:
The commodity sales data processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: an application status notification unit configured to output a notification indicating whether the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon has been applied to the sales transaction price by the second application unit (i.e. receive notification of receipt, wherein the receipt indicates that a second-type of coupon was applied to transaction) (Boal: Fig. 1 and Col. 5 Lines 31-44 “As yet another example, the customer may obtain an electronic receipt using a dedicated transaction management application. The dedicated transaction management application, which may also double as a payment application and/or coupon application, may communicate with a server to obtain receipt data that has been uploaded by retailers in association with an account belonging to the customer. The application may then organize that receipt data for presentation to the customer. In an embodiment, the transaction management application may monitor the account for new receipts periodically, or receive push-notifications of receipts from the server. The receipt management application may then notify the customer when a new receipt is available.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 3 Lines 22-39 “The identified digital coupons may be applied against the transaction. When the customer identifier has been received and the customer identifier is associated with a known customer identity, an electronic receipt is provided via an electronic address associated with the known customer identity. The electronic receipt for the transaction may be provided to the customer instead of a printed receipt.”).
With respect to Claims 9 and 15:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 4. Claims 9 and 15 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 4. Therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 5:
Boal teaches:
The commodity sales data processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: an unavailable coupon notification unit configured to output a notification indicating that the coupon benefit associated with the second coupon was not applied when the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon cannot be applied to the transaction price (i.e. notification is provided when coupon is not available anymore) (Boal: Col. 30 Lines 39-50 “In an embodiment, the transaction information includes coupon redemption data indicating that the one or more digital coupons were applied to the transaction. Optionally, at block 1160, a coupon server may remove any redeemed digital coupons from the customer's account based on the coupon redemption data. The coupon server may further notify other retailers who may have cached copies of previous coupon availability data for the customer that the redeemed digital coupons are no longer available for the customer. In other embodiments, updating of coupon availability data is instead achieved through various asynchronous backend processes.”).
With respect to Claims 10 and 16:
All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected to claim 5. Claims 10 and 16 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond claim 5. Therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 17:
Boal teaches:
The commodity sales data processing device according to claim 10, wherein the notification is displayed on the touch panel (i.e. notification of new offers is displayed on a touchscreen) (Boal: Col. 7 Lines 52-59 “As another example, the user may launch a mobile coupon client on a smartphone, without having selected a link in an electronic receipt. The user may then navigate to a screen entitled "Special Offers," which displays offers downloaded by the client from an electronic address based on credentials entered by the user. In an embodiment, the mobile client may have notified the user that new offers are available prior to the user having launched the coupon client.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 9 Lines 9-19 “Block 330 comprises providing an interface configured to accept input indicating a customer identifier associated with the transaction. For instance, the interface may be a magnetic card scanner, an RFID or NFC reader, a touchscreen, a biometric scanner, a keypad, facial recognition software, and so forth. Depending on the environment, the customer identifier may comprise any of, for instance, a store loyalty card number, a credit card number, an NFC or RFID tag, a hardware identifier, a phone number, a license number, biometric data, a user name, and so forth. In an embodiment, multiple interfaces capable of receiving input identifying multiple types of identifiers may be provided.”).
With respect to Claim 18:
Boal teaches:
The commodity sales data processing device according to claim 17, wherein the notification includes a confirmation screen displayed to the purchaser (i.e. user is presented confirmation that offer was applied to transaction by displaying receipt via interface) (Boal: Col. 3-14 “Block 340 comprises receiving input indicating whether the customer prefers to receive an electronic receipt for the transaction. In an embodiment, block 340 occurs in response to a prompt from the cashier or terminal, such as "Do you want a paper or electronic receipt?" or "May I email you your receipt?" The input may be received in a variety of manners, including the pressing of a key on a keypad or button on a touchpad. In an embodiment, the input of block 340 is the same as that of block 330. That is, the customer provides input indicating the customer identifier in response to being prompted to indicate whether the customer would prefer an electronic receipt.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 12 Lines 29-46 “FIG. 4 illustrates a method flow 400 for electronically providing coupon information in association with a receipt for a transaction conducted at a brick-or-mortar store, according to an embodiment. Flow 400 may be performed by a variety of entities, depending on the embodiment, including the retailer, a retail server, a payment server, a coupon server, and/or any other suitable computing device. Block 410 comprises receiving transaction information for a transaction between a retailer and a customer, such as a transaction completed per block 320 of FIG. 3. The transaction information includes account identifying information. The transaction information may also include various transaction details, such as a total price, a list of items purchased, information about coupons or other discounts applied to the transaction, and so forth. Depending on the embodiment, the transaction information may be received from any of the terminal, retail server, payment provider, or even the coupon server.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 9-12 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 05/06/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are not persuasive:
The Applicant asserts “As reflected in the specification, conventional POS systems impose timing-dependent constraints on coupon processing, requiring different coupon types to be entered at different stages of a transaction, which introduces operator burden and risks incorrect application of discounts. See ¶ [0003] and ¶ [0004]. The amended claims provide a technical solution to this POS-specific problem. In particular, the independent claims recite a processor-controlled, classification-driven application framework in which: coupon data including classification is retrieved from a coupon server; first-type coupon benefits are applied upon receipt to item-level data; and second-type coupon benefits are explicitly not applied upon receipt, but are instead applied only after the transaction price has been adjusted to reflect the first-type coupon benefits. This recited "not apply upon receipt" and deferred application introduces a state- dependent control mechanism that governs execution based on an intermediate computational state (i.e., an adjusted transaction price). As described in the specification in ¶¶ [0060]-[0063], coupon data is processed in association with transaction data and pricing computations performed by the POS system, and the claimed sequencing ensures that the system produces a correct transaction price without requiring timing-specific user input. Thus, the claims decouple coupon input timing from coupon application timing and instead enforce correct sequencing through processor-controlled logic. This constitutes a concrete improvement in how the POS system processes transaction data, ensuring deterministic and conflict-free computation of the transaction price. Importantly, the claims do not merely recite applying discounts in a particular order. Rather, they recite a specific data-processing architecture in which application of second-type coupon benefits is conditioned on the existence of an intermediate computed state. This imposes a meaningful limit on the claimed subject matter and reflects a technical improvement to POS system operation, not an abstract business rule. Consistent with Enfish LLC V. Microsoft Corp., the claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality-namely, improving transaction processing in a POS system through structured, state-dependent control of coupon application. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applying a first type of coupon benefits before applying a second type of coupon benefits does not provide an improvement to conventional POS systems and “ensuring deterministic and conflict-free computation of the transaction price” is not an improvement to another technical field or technology but further describes the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because the claims are directed to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Furthermore, Claims 1, 6, and 12 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea including “register items being purchased by a purchaser in a sales transaction; calculate a transaction price to be paid by the purchaser for the items registered in the sales transaction; receive coupon codes of coupons to be used by the purchaser in the sales transaction; transmit the coupon codes and receive in response thereto coupon data associated with each of the coupon codes, the coupon data including a coupon classification and a coupon benefit, the coupon classification indicating a first-type coupon and a second-type coupon; apply the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon to one or more of the items that have been registered in the ales transaction and are a target of the first- type coupon, upon receipt of the coupon data; and not apply the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon upon receipt of the coupon data, and apply the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon to the transaction price after the transaction price has been adjusted to reflect the coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupons.” These further limitations are not seen as any more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 6, and 12 recite additional limitations including “to/from the coupon server; transmit the coupon codes to a coupon server and receive from the coupon server in response thereto coupon data associated with each of the coupon codes.” The additional limitations reciting – “to/from the coupon server” are seen as adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, alone, and in combination, these additional elements are seen as using a computer or tool to perform an abstract idea, adding insignificant-extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. They do no more than link the judicial exception (i.e. applying a first or second type of coupon benefit based on received information corresponding to a first or second type of coupon benefit) to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. coupon server) and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts decided that although the additional elements did limit the use of the abstract idea, the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and this fails to add an inventive concept to the claims (See Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC,).
The Applicant also asserts “Even if the claims are considered to be directed to an abstract idea, the amended claims recite "significantly more" than any such idea. The independent claims do not merely recite applying coupon benefits. Rather, the claims recite a specific and constrained implementation that requires: receiving coupon data including a coupon classification distinguishing first-type and second-type coupons; applying a coupon benefit associated with the first-type coupon to one or more registered items upon receipt of the coupon data; and explicitly not applying a coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon upon receipt of the coupon data, and instead applying the coupon benefit associated with the second-type coupon to the transaction price only after the transaction price has been adjusted to reflect the first-type coupon benefit. This combination of limitations defines a particular processing configuration, not a generalized concept. In particular, the claims require: Classification-based branching of execution paths, in which different types of coupons are processed under different rules; An explicit prohibition on execution ("not apply upon receipt") for one class of coupons; and A conditional execution requirement tied to a specific intermediate computed value (i.e., a transaction price already adjusted by first-type coupon benefits). This combination imposes a non-conventional control structure in which execution of certain operations is deferred and conditioned on system state, rather than performed immediately upon receipt of input. Such a configuration cannot be reduced to a generic or routine application of coupon processing. Further, the claims recite a specific integration of these constraints within a POS system, including registration of items, calculation of a transaction price, and selective application of coupon benefits based on classification and system state. The claimed arrangement therefore reflects a particular implementation in a technological environment, rather than an abstract concept performed in the human mind. As recognized in DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, L.P., claims that are directed to a solution "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks" provide an inventive concept. Here, the claims recite a solution that is rooted in POS system processing, requiring a processor to enforce a specific execution constraint-namely, withholding application of second-type coupon benefits upon receipt and applying those benefits only after a defined intermediate transaction state is reached. This is not a conventional or routine arrangement. The claims require the system to maintain coupon data in a non-applied state and to execute a deferred operation only upon satisfaction of a defined condition, i.e., after the transaction price has been adjusted by applying coupon benefits associated with first-type coupons. These constraints impose a specific, state- dependent control structure that governs execution of the transaction processing workflow.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The application of the first type and second type of coupon benefits to the transaction is recited at a high level (i.e. upon receipt of coupon data from the coupon server and upon adjustment of the transaction price), therefore, is not rooted in computer technology nor imposes any meaningful requirements/constraints on the POS system processing and the POS system is merely being used to describe the computing environment in which the abstract idea takes place. Furthermore, Claims 1, 6, and 12 recite additional limitations including “to/from the coupon server; transmit the coupon codes to a coupon server and receive from the coupon server in response thereto coupon data associated with each of the coupon codes.” The additional limitations reciting – “to/from the coupon server” are seen as adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, alone, and in combination, these additional elements are seen as using a computer or tool to perform an abstract idea, adding insignificant-extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. They do no more than link the judicial exception (i.e. applying a first or second type of coupon benefit based on received information corresponding to a first or second type of coupon benefit) to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. coupon server) and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts decided that although the additional elements did limit the use of the abstract idea, the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and this fails to add an inventive concept to the claims (See Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC,). Claims 1, 6, and 12 also recite additional limitations – “transmit the coupon codes to a coupon server and receive from the coupon server in response thereto coupon data associated with each of the coupon codes.” However, the courts have noted that “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” is a computer function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional (See: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);). The courts have also noted that “Storing and retrieving information in memory,” is a computer function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional (See: Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;). Therefore, merely transmitting/receiving data over a network to a server do not integrate the claims into a practical application because they are seen as adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 1, 6, and 12 do not include additional elements or a combination of elements that result in the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements listed amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the applicant’s specifications describe “central processing unit”, ¶¶ [0032] [0033] [0058], for implementing the units/server, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Furthermore, there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field, and there is no transformation of subject matter into a different state. Therefore, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained above with an updated analysis.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 12-13 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 05/06/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 and 12-18 over Boal have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent 11,328,313 to Kendall.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited to further show the state of the art:
U.S. Patent 6,839,683 to Walker for disclosing Systems and methods are provided using a stored benefit to facilitate a transaction in which a buyer offers to purchase a product. According to one embodiment, offer information, including an offer amount, is received from a buyer. The offer information may be received, for example, via a Web page. An indication that the buyer is willing to redeem one or more stored benefits is also received. A stored benefit may be, for example, a token associated with the buyer when he or she applies for a service. A value associated with the stored benefit is determined, and the offer information is evaluated based on the offer amount, the value associated with the stored benefit, and an amount associated with a product. According to one embodiment, the offer information includes a product category, and the product provided to the buyer is determined based on the product category.
U.S. Publication 2013/0191205 to Harkless for disclosing A system and method for retrieving and redeeming product coupons, including the following steps: a) Offering a Web-based coupon retrieval and redemption application for downloading onto a compatible registered mobile device, preferably a mobile phone; b) Once the Web-based application has been downloaded and activated, receiving a coupon prompt from the mobile phone device for at least one item of interest at the store; c) Searching a system database of the Web-based application for at least one coupon corresponding to the item; d) Retrieving and forwarding the coupon to the mobile phone device in response to the coupon prompt at the store; e) Displaying the coupon in a display window of the mobile phone device; and f) Upon selection of the coupon, initiating a system for redeeming the coupon at the store.
U.S. Publication 2014/0310080 to Salmon for disclosing A system and method to provide a universal loyalty currency, facilitate exchange of loyalty benefits, and allow payments using loyalty benefits. A method includes: receiving registration information to associate account information of a payment account with at least one loyalty account to enable conversion of first loyalty benefits to second loyalty benefits; receiving, for a transaction, an authorization request identifying the account information and requesting the use of the second loyalty benefits to fund at least a portion of the transaction; and processing the transaction using the second benefits converted from the first loyalty benefits hosted in the loyalty account and funds from the payment account.
U.S. Publication 2013/0001298 to Reblin for disclosing An interrogating and processing system and method is described. A wireless communication device interrogates an information source, having a barcode or tag, and wirelessly transmits data indicative of the information source. The interrogator can be built into or adjunct to the wireless communication device. An automated processing subsystem receives the transmitted data and identifies an item corresponding to the data. A fulfillment subsystem effects delivery of the item to a destination. There can be a coupon code scanning and processing system and method. A wireless computing device having an interrogator reads a coupon code. An automated processing subsystem receives the corresponding data and provides a benefit associated with the coupon. The benefit can be a discount on a product or service. Alternatively, at least a portion of the coupon including a code is displayed on a screen of the computing device for processing at a point of sale terminal.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Azam Ansari, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7047. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8 AM and 4:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at (571) 270-3948.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephonic interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/AZAM A ANSARI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights