The Coca-Cola Company

[2023] APO 9

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

The Coca-Cola Company [2023] APO 9

Patent Application:             2019202034

Title:SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION AUDITING AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Patent Applicant:                The Coca-Cola Company

Delegate:Anish Singh

Decision Date:  13 February 2023

Hearing Date:  Written submissions filed on 11 December 2020 and 26 April 2022

Catchwords:  PATENTS – section 45 – examiner’s objection – vending network electronic transaction auditing and accountability – manner of manufacture – invention in substance is directed to a mere scheme – application refused

Representation:                   Patent attorney for the applicant: Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application:             2019202034

Title:SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION AUDITING AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Patent Applicant:                The Coca-Cola Company

Date of Decision:                13 February 2023

DECISION

The claims of the application do not define a manner of manufacture.  The proposed amendments and the matter described in the body of the specification provide no material that could result in valid amendments to the claims overcoming this finding.

I refuse the application. 

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1. Patent application 2019202034 (“the application”) by The Coca-Cola Company (“the Applicant”) was filed on 25 March 2019 as a divisional application and claims an earlier priority date of 21 February 2008.  The examination was requested on 2 May 2019.

1. The application claims divisional status from parent application 2017251756.  The parent application claimed divisional status from grandparent application 2015218523. 

2. There is one examination report on the grandparent application containing objections with respect to manner of manufacture, novelty, and inventive step, albeit on a different set of claims to the claims of the application.  The grandparent application lapsed due to it failing to gain acceptance by the due date.

3. There are two examination reports on the parent application.  The two adverse examination reports on the parent application only contain objections with respect to manner of manufacture.  The parent application lapsed due to it failing to gain acceptance by the due date.
   

4. Examination report No. 1 on the application was issued on 25 April 2020.  The report only contains an objection with respect to manner of manufacture.  A response to that report was filed on 1 July 2020 without any proposed amendments. 

5. Examination report No. 2 was issued on 28 July 2020.  The report only contains an objection with respect to manner of manufacture.  A request for a hearing by written submissions was filed on 9 October 2020 in response to examination report No. 2. 

1. The final date of acceptance of the application was 25 April 2021, however, paragraph 13.4(1)(g) of the Patents Regulations 1991 (“the Regulations”) may be available to extend the time for gaining acceptance to three (3) months (or longer under subregulation 13.4(3)) from the date of the present decision.

Submissions

1. The Applicant filed a document containing the written submissions (Applicant’s first submissions or AS1) on 11 December 2020.

2. The Applicant filed a declaration from one of the inventors (“Koll’s declaration”) on 15 July 2021.  This declaration was referred to in the Applicant’s first submissions.

3. In light of the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 202 (Aristocrat 21), the Applicant was provided an opportunity to provide further submissions.

4. The Applicant filed another document containing written submissions (Applicant’s second submissions or AS2) on 26 April 2022.  At the same time, the Applicant filed a statement of proposed amendments, in which the Applicant proposed, under item 2, amendments to the claims, and under item 1, amendments to the description.  A duplicate copy of the Koll’s declaration was also filed at the same time. 

5. By this stage the High Court granted special leave to appeal Aristocrat 21.  The Applicant in their submissions indicated their willingness to hold the matter in abeyance until the High Court decision.

6. In light of the decision of the High Court in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (Aristocrat 22), the Applicant was provided an opportunity to provide further submissions.

7. The Applicant on 9 September 2022 advised of an intention to file additional submissions.

8. The Applicant on 26 September 2022 further advised of no intentions to file additional submissions.

THE SPECIFICATION

The proposed amendments

1. The amendments proposed on 26 April 2022 are directed to deleting pages 3 to 5 of the specification on file and replacing with new pages 3 to 5 and 5a and deleting all claim pages on file and replacing with new claim pages 35 to 39. 

2. I do not need to decide whether the proposed amendments would be allowable as it will not affect the outcome of my decision.  For this decision, I will consider the specification as if amended by the proposed amendments.

The body of the specification

1. The application relates to a vending network, particularly, to method and systems for providing electronic transaction auditing and accountability.  As a background, in the vending industry coins and bills have been used to vend goods and services.  The coins and bills are then collected from a vending equipment and can be reconciled with physical inventory.  Another means of vending payment in recent times has been cashless payments, for example payments by credit cards.

1. The use of cashless payments in addition to coins and bills poses a problem in reconciling an actual vend.  As cashless payments are commonly processed by third party entities, electronic funds transfers (EFT) are typically used to remit the operator for cashless payments received by the third party.  The EFT transactions may remit multiple transactions in a bundled or aggregated manner thereby not revealing individual vend transactions.  The funds remitted may also not match the EFT amount since transaction and/or other processing fees may be deducted for cashless payment transactions.

2. Paragraphs [0006] – [0009] of the specification provide the problems that arise when handling cashless transactions for vending machines.  These are listed below:

   “…coins, bills, and cashless transactions may not be timely reconciled with inventory since many cashless transactions may still be stored in a vending machine or other associated data storage device.”

“cashless transactions may still be en route to a third-party server, not settled yet and/or aggregated with little or no transaction level detail.”

“…there may be little or no accountability as to when vends occurred or what was charged to the customer.”

“…there may be little or no accountability as to whether a customer was timely and accurately charged, and little or no assurance that a vending equipment operator timely received the correct funds for vends paid for by cashless transactions.”

“…a problem exists in auditing third party servers to verify accuracy and/or correctness of cashless transactions.”

“…problem occurs when route personnel attempt to reconcile transaction amounts and inventory at a vending equipment location.”

1. In general terms in addressing the problems, the alleged invention relates to “systems and method for providing electronic transaction auditing and accountability”.  Paragraphs [0012] – [0016] of the specification introduce different embodiments of the invention.  The embodiments in paragraphs [0012] and [0013] summarise a method and systems for providing electronic transaction auditing.  The embodiments in paragraphs [0014] and [0015] summarise a system and method for providing electronic transaction accountability.  The embodiment in paragraph [0016] summarises a system comprising a vending machine, a transaction-type device, a destination server, and a server switch. 

2. The specification discusses the invention with respect to Figures 1 – 11.  Figures 1 – 6 provide the arrangement of technology that may be used to implement different embodiments of the invention.  The vending network arrangement includes a vending equipment and associated transaction-type device that communicate to destination servers via a server switch over a network.  Figure 1 below depicts the overall arrangement of technology of the vending network and computing elements that may be used. 

3. The system includes one or more transaction-type devices (examples from the specification include: cash transaction reader, cashless transaction reader, RFID reader, vending machine controller and other payment transaction devices) associated with vending equipment that may be in communication with one or more server switches (from paragraph [0030] of the specification, it is apparent that “server switch” and “server” can be interchangeably used) via a network (paragraph [0038] of the specification provides examples of networks including the Internet, wireless network, local area network etc.).  The server switch may store copies of the transaction data received from the transaction-type devices and may generate a reconciliation token and associate said token with some or all transactions.  In some embodiments the transaction-type devices may transmit different types of data to different servers via the server switch wherein the reconciliation token may facilitate auditing and accounting functions for the vending network.  I have listed the benefits from the specification below:

   “…one or more reconciliation tokens can facilitate auditing some or all of the transaction data handled by one or more vend settlement servers 116 and/or third party servers 122.  For example, a server switch, such as 108A, can communicate at least one reconciliation token with each transaction to a vend settlement server 116 and/or third party server 122, and receive transaction data from the vend settlement server 116 and/or third party server 122 in response to each reconciliation token.” [0042]

“…a server switch, such as 108A, can be operable to switch or otherwise transfer one or more transaction records between various destination servers” [0043]

“…a server switch, such as 108A, can be operable to control access to a network, such as 106, by inspecting each transaction received at the server switch 108A” [0044]

“…a server switch, such as 108A, can be operable to control the types or classes of transactions a particular transaction-type device, such as 102A, is allowed to transmit on a network, such as 106.” [0045]

1. Figures 2 – 6 provide embodiments of the invention using some or all the components of the system shown in Figure 1.  These embodiments include the use of a reconciliation token between the server switch and another server (third party server) to track transactions in a vending network, audit a third party server, coordinate operational and/or financial data processing, and provide transactional and EFT details for vend settlements in view of handling cashless transactions.

2. Figures 7 – 11 provide the methods that may use reconciliation tokens and/or transactions states to administer transaction level accountability. 

3. The alleged invention is further described by the method in Figures 7 and 8 including communications between at least one transaction-type device, at least one server switch, and a third party server.  I consider the figures to be largely self-explanatory. 

4. The transaction-type device communicates transaction data including at least a unique transaction identifier (paragraph [0083]) to a server switch, the server switch generates a reconciliation token for the transaction data and transmits the reconciliation token and the transaction data to a third party server. The third party server upon processing the data generates a response with the reconciliation data back to the server switch where the response data is checked for correct transaction sequences. The originating transaction-type device can then receive the response and response data. If the transaction sequences are correct and meet a predefined set of sequences a dispensing operation may be triggered by a processor associated with the server switch as additionally indicated in paragraph [0013].

1. Figures 9 – 11 discuss embodiments of the alleged invention where reconciliation tokens or transaction states or a combination of reconciliation token and transaction states are used to generate reports and/or to audit servers.  The methods discussed include communication between the server switch and other servers, such as, third party servers, settlement servers, in producing desired reports.  An example of what the reconciliation tokens can be used for is illustrated in Figure 9 which is reproduced below:

I consider the figure to be largely self-explanatory and there is no need for me to provide any further explanation.

The claims

1. The specification, as proposed to be amended on 26 April 2022, ends with 16 claims.  The entire claim set is set out in the Annex A to this decision.  The independent claims are as follows:

2. A method of providing electronic transaction auditing at a vending machine, comprising:

   receiving, by at least one processor coupled to at least one memory, originating transaction data comprising at least one unique identifier for an electronic transaction from a transaction-type device at the vending machine, wherein the at least one unique identifier is associated with a first transaction processing state that is associated with the electronic transaction, and wherein the originating transaction data does not include payment data associated with a method of payment used at the transaction-type device;

   generating, by the at least one processor, a reconciliation token comprising the at least one unique identifier;

   storing, by the at least one processor, the reconciliation token and the first transaction processing state in a data storage device;

   communicating, by the at least one processor, the reconciliation token and data indicative of the electronic transaction to a destination server;

   receiving, by the at least one processor, from the destination server, the reconciliation token and data indicative of a response conveying a second transaction processing state associated with the electronic transaction and the reconciliation token;

   comparing, by the at least one processor, the second transaction processing state to a stored predefined sequence of transaction processing states comprising a predefined combination of transaction processing states in a specific order including the first transaction processing state, wherein the electronic transaction is confirmed when the second transaction processing state matches an expected transaction processing state within the predefined sequence of transaction processing states according to the specific order; and

   causing, by the at least one processor, a dispensing operation via a dispensing mechanism at the vending machine after the electronic transaction is confirmed, wherein the electronic transaction is confirmed by the at least one processor without use of the payment data.

   7.  A system for providing electronic transaction auditing at a vending machine, comprising:

   a server; and

   at least one electronic transaction auditing module functionally coupled to the server and configured to:

   receive at least one unique identifier for an electronic transaction from a transaction-type device at the vending machine, wherein the at least one unique identifier is associated with a first transaction processing state that is associated with the electronic transaction;

   generate a reconciliation token comprising the at least one unique identifier;

   store the reconciliation token and the first transaction processing state in a data storage device;

   communicate the reconciliation token and data indicative of the electronic transaction to a destination server;

   receive, from the destination server, the reconciliation token and data indicative of a response conveying a second transaction processing state associated with the electronic transaction and the reconciliation token;

   compare the second transaction processing state to a stored predefined sequence of transaction processing states comprising a predefined combination of transaction processing states in a specific order including the first transaction processing state, wherein the electronic transaction is confirmed when the second transaction processing state matches an expected transaction processing state within the predefined sequence of transaction processing states according to the specific order; and

   cause a dispensing operation via a dispensing mechanism at the vending machine after the electronic transaction is confirmed, wherein the electronic transaction is confirmed without use of the payment data.

   16.  A system comprising: 

   a vending machine configured to dispense at least one product via a vending mechanism;

   a transaction-type device associated with the vending machine;

   a destination server; and

   a server switch in communication with the vending machine, the transaction-type device, and the destination server, the server switch comprising:

   at least one memory that stores computer-executable instructions; at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and execute the computer executable instructions to:

   receive originating transaction data comprising at least one unique identifier for an electronic transaction from the transaction-type device, wherein the originating transaction data is associated with a first transaction processing state that is associated with the electronic transaction, and wherein the originating transaction data does not include payment data associated with a method of payment used at the transaction-type device;

   generate a reconciliation token comprising the at least one unique identifier;

   store the reconciliation token and the first transaction processing state;

   communicate the reconciliation token and data indicative of the electronic transaction to the destination server;

   receive, from the destination server, the reconciliation token and data indicative of a response conveying a second transaction processing state associated with the electronic transaction and the reconciliation token;  

   compare the second transaction processing state to a stored predefined sequence of transaction processing states comprising a predefined combination of transaction processing states in a specific order including the first transaction processing state, wherein the electronic transaction is confirmed when the second transaction processing state matches an expected transaction processing state within the predefined sequence of transaction processing states according to the specific order; and

   trigger a dispensing operation via the dispensing mechanism at the vending machine after the electronic transaction is confirmed, wherein the electronic transaction is confirmed by the at least one processor without use of the payment data.

The claimed invention

1. Claim 16 is directed to a system that comprises a vending machine, a transaction-type device, a destination server and a server switch.  The server switch comprises at least one memory that stores computer-executable instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions as claimed.  The claim does not state that the system is to provide electronic auditing at a vending machine. 

1. Claim 7 is directed to a system for providing electronic transaction auditing at a vending machine.  The system further comprises a server, at least one electronic transaction auditing module coupled to the server and configured to perform the steps as claimed.  I note that the auditing module coupled to the server receives at least one unique identifier from the transaction-type device at the vending machine.  The crux of the electronic transaction auditing, based on the features of electronic transaction auditing module, is processed at the auditing module which is functionally coupled to the server.  Therefore, I have construed the preamble of claim 7 to not necessarily limiting the scope to provide electronic transaction auditing at the location of the vending machine.

1. Similarly, the preamble of claim 1 is construed as a method of providing electronic transaction auditing related to a vending machine and not necessarily limiting the scope to provide electronic transaction auditing at the location of the vending machine.

2. Claim 7 does not in any detail incorporate features on how the electronic auditing is performed at the location of the vending machine.  The specification also does not elaborate on this.  Even if the auditing is provided at the location of the vending machine, I have construed the feature to only include connectivity to the vending network at the location of the vending machine to obtain auditing data processed by the electronic transaction auditing module or processor.  This is no different to connecting from anywhere to the vending network in order to provide electronic transaction auditing.

3. I note that claim 7 does not further limit the claim by the feature of “wherein the originating transaction data does not include payment data associated with a method of payment used at the transaction-type device”.  This feature is included in independent claims 1 and 16. 

1. The invention is directed to the field of electronic transaction auditing where a vending network is used.  The vending network is exemplified in Figure 1 and includes a vending equipment with transaction-type devices, server switch, multiple storage devices and multiple servers.  The server switch may be a processor-based platform, such as a server.  Claim 1 includes:

“receiving, by at least one processor coupled to at least one memory, originating transaction data comprising at least one unique identifier for an electronic transaction from a transaction-type device at the vending machine, wherein the at least one unique identifier is associated with a first transaction processing state that is associated with the electronic transaction, and wherein the originating transaction data does not include payment data associated with a method of payment used at the transaction-type device”

1. Here, the user of the vending machine vends for a product or service at the vending machine.  A transaction-type device at the vending machine generates a unique transaction identifier and sends the identifier to the processor.  The unique transaction identifier is associated with a first transaction state.  Paragraph [0055] of the specification provides examples of what first and other states may be:

“...a first state can be recorded by a server switch, such as 108A, as an initial authorization request by the transaction-type device 102A.  Another state can be a response to the initial authorization request by a third party server, such as 122.  Yet another state can be a completed sales record communicated from the transaction-type device 102A when the user completes the sales or vending transaction.  Another state can be when the third party server 122 acknowledges the receipt of the completed sales transaction record communicated from the transaction-type device 102A.”

1. The specification neither describes how the unique identifier is created by the transaction-type device nor does it describe how the processing states are created.  I have taken the unique identifier to be any unique information that a transaction-type device would normally generate when a vending action is initiated.  I also note that a transaction-type device may be a RFID reader, biometric reader, vending machine controller, cash and cashless reader etc. and therefore it is within its normal operation to include or exclude payment data.  Similarly, the specification does not describe any special way of creating the processing state information, rather, it appears the transaction processing state to be no more than information that indicates what stage a transaction is up to. 

1. The next step of the claimed invention then proceeds to a reconciliation token generation stage.  The reconciliation token from the reading of the specification is also a unique identifier or identifying instrument such as code.  Paragraph [0031] defines reconciliation token:

   “…the terms ‘reconciliation token’ and ‘unique identifier’ can be used interchangeably.  Embodiments of the invention are intended to cover any type of unique identifier including, but not limited to, a reconciliation token or any other device, code, or identifying instrument with similar functionality.”

1. The specification does not go into any detail of how the reconciliation token is created by the processor or server switch.  Rather, it gives examples of what the token could comprise, importantly without any specificity as to the unique identifier sent by the transaction-type device.  The processor then proceeds to store the reconciliation token and processing state in a data storage device.

1. Claim 1 then continues with the following steps:

   “communicating, by the at least one processor, the reconciliation token and data indicative of the electronic transaction to a destination server; receiving, by the at least one processor, from the destination server, the reconciliation token and data indicative of a response conveying a second transaction processing state associated with the electronic transaction and the reconciliation token; comparing, by the at least one processor, the second transaction processing state to a stored predefined sequence of transaction processing states comprising a predefined combination of transaction processing states in a specific order including the first transaction processing state, wherein the electronic transaction is confirmed when the second transaction processing state matches an expected transaction processing state within the predefined sequence of transaction processing states according to the specific order”

2. These steps of the claimed invention plainly send and receive information in the form of the reconciliation token, data indicative of the electronic transaction, and data indicative of a response conveying a second transaction processing state.  This second transaction processing state is merely data that may indicate a second stage of the transaction of an item or service from a vending machine.  Once received by the processor, the processor compares the conveyed second processing state to an expected processing state within predefined sequence of transaction states.  The receiving, sending and/or comparing of the reconciliation tokens, identifiers and/or transaction processing states are within standard functions of processors, storage, and servers.  These steps are performed to confirm the order of the processing states to predefined states which results in confirming the electronic transaction.

1. The claimed invention ends with the step of:

   “causing, by the at least one processor, a dispensing operation via a dispensing mechanism at the vending machine after the electronic transaction is confirmed, wherein the electronic transaction is confirmed by the at least one processor without use of the payment data.”

1. I have perused through the entire specification and have found no detailed explanation on how the dispensing mechanism of the vending machine is operated.  The dispensing operation is nothing more than what is disclosed in paragraphs [0105] and [0035] of the specification:

   “Block 720 is followed by block 722, in which the transaction-type device, such as 102A, receives the response.  In this embodiment, the transaction-type device, such as 102A, which initiated the originating transaction can receive the response and associated response data, and the transaction-type device, such as 102A, can process the response and response data as needed.  The method 700 ends after block 722.” [0105]

   “In one embodiment, a transaction-type device, such as 102A, can be a payment device operable to accept a cash and/or cashless payment from a consumer, and further operable to facilitate the dispensing of goods and/or services from associated vending equipment, such as 104A.  In another embodiment, a transaction-type device, such as 102A, can be a vending equipment controller operable to facilitate the operation of associated vending equipment, such as 104A.” [0035]

2. From reading the claim, it is very likely that once a determination is made confirming the electronic transaction, a message or signal may be sent to the transaction-type device to facilitate the dispensation of an item or service from the vending machine as per the normal operations of the dispenser within the vending machine.

The objection

1. The only outstanding objection is that the claims are not for a manner of manufacture.  Part of the objection from examination report no. 2 is reproduced here (original emphasis):

   With regards to your reference to Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177 (RPL), I would like to state that the assessment of this application was considered as a whole in combination of the integers. In saying that, the decision in Rokt Pte Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2018] FCA 1988, found that the substance of the invention must be for a Manner of Manufacture. Hence, as part of the process of assessing the substance each and every feature (integer) must logically be considered independently to determine if there is any technical contribution in that feature.  The assessment also involves consideration of the claim as a whole to determine any technical contribution.  This approach was used in the examination of your application.  That is, the features of the claimed invention have been considered independently and as a whole to determine the contribution to the art, hence the substance. 

   Based on what is defined in the claims, the ingenuity merely lies in the arrangement of a computer processing accounting transactions.  This is merely an electronic transaction auditing and accountability scheme that is used for administrative purposes (reconciliation of transactions).  However, before the priority, this arrangement is considered as generic arrangement.

   In relation to the above the combination of the features defined does not result in any improvement to the computer or the functioning of the computer. The specification, when read as a whole, does not provide specific technical details to indicate how the combination of these well-known functions of a computer result in the claimed invention contributing to an improvement in the computer or functioning of the computer. The combination of features is merely linked so as to implement the scheme, wherein the inventor's contribution is considered to lie. Additionally, the Court in Rokt at [201] accepts that the approach taken by the Commissioner follows appropriate laid out legal principles as outlined at [189]. In that paragraph it was noted that a claimed invention must be assessed as a matter of substance not form and that it is “a question of understanding what has been the work of, the output of, and the result of, human ingenuity”. In determining what the substance, or result of human ingenuity is, it is necessary to understand what the claimed invention’s contribution to the state of the art is. In order to determine what substance of the invention relates to (i.e. what the contribution to the state of the art is), it is necessary to understand what the state of the art was before the priority date. Thus, in response to your assertions, no elements of the prior art were considered in isolation. Contrary to what was asserted in your response, the present invention failed to bring together a combination of new and known elements to form a working combination that had not previously been achieved.

   Based on the specification, the problem identified relates to providing electronic transaction auditing and accountability for vending machines.  This involves auditing third party servers to verify accuracy and/or correctness of cashless transactions, having accountability as to when vends occurred or what was charged to the customer and timely reconciliation with coins, bills, and cashless transactions (as many cashless transactions may still be stored in a vending machine or other associated data storage device).  These processes do not indicate a technical problem to overcome as it is only attempting to automate a transaction reconciliation process.  This is merely an administrative scheme.  Therefore, the specification, including your response, does not provide any discussion relating to particular technical limitations that the claimed invention seeks to overcome, nor does the specification provide any details that relate to an inventor contribution that involves any technical ingenuity or results in an improvement to any technical aspect of the claimed invention.  Hence the use of a product dispenser does not change the substance or the scope of the invention. 

   With regard to your assertions on Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Patents [2020] FCA 778 (Aristocrat), It [sic] is therefore maintained that the substance of the claimed invention lies in a scheme for accounting and auditing vending machine transactions (reconciliation of coins, dollars and cashless transactions) and not in any aspect of the computerisation thereof, and as such does not result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer irrespective of the data being processed. Hence, contrary to what was asserted in the response, this is not an observable physical effect that is similar to the physical effect resulting from the improved user interface of Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited [2016] APO 49.

   Aristocrat (paragraph 32) refers to Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd (RPL) in which was said in the context of an arrangement that was in substance a scheme: “Where the claimed invention is to a computerised business method, the invention must lie in that computerisation.  It is not a patentable invention simply to 'put' a business method 'into' a computer to implement the business method using the computer for its well- known and understood functions.”

   However, the method discussed in Aristocrat which, through computerisation, brings about a technical improvement to a gaming machine that renders it simpler to operate, as by a particularly constructed and presented one touch implementation.  As stated above the process of auditing financial transactions is considered not a technical improvement as it does not improve any aspect of computerisation defined.  The alleged invention of is merely an "administrative" innovation rather than a "technical" innovation. 

   In relation to your assertions that the problem is technical in nature because the interrelated claim elements use a particular computer system structure and process to determine whether a product dispenser is to be configured to dispense a product automatically.  I respectfully disagree.  The computer or processor defined in the claims is merely a standard computer processor that is capable of processing data.  The interrelated claim features only require a standard computer to implement them.  Hence, I disagree that a particular computer system structure and process required to determine whether a product dispenser is to be configured to dispense a product automatically.  This is merely a generic implementation of the computer.  This is not considered technical ingenuity or an unconventional technological solution. 

   I acknowledge one of the inventors, H.  Brock Kolls, providing comments alluding to the technical nature of the invention.  I respectfully disagree that the invention is technical in nature.  For example, I acknowledge that back in 2008 the problem of tracking transaction records of transactions performed at vending machines across various different vending machine types, processing platforms and third-party services were uncommon.  However, back in 2008 computers were known to reconcile financial transactions (for example banking or accounting systems).  Thus, the process to unify or integrate transaction data, from different vending machines and transaction devices is merely collating data from different machines.  This is not a contribution the to art [sic].  It is merely a generic implementation of the art.  Next, I acknowledge that there is a need to integrate or unify thousands of transaction records across so many different types of vending machines and transaction-type devices.  However, computers are known to perform transaction integration and unification at the priority date.  This is not considered a contribution in the art.  Likewise, the process of tracking or capturing the state of the transaction is generic function of a computer processor.  This is not a technical improvement as computers are known to perform such functions.  Thus, the computer functions in standard fashion.  At the date of the priority, computers are capable of carrying such a function.  Hence, the use of “state” for a transaction is a generic implementation and not a technical improvement. 

   Furthermore, I acknowledge the assertions that the invention was difficult to develop due to the number of machine types, platforms, and third-party services involved.  However, the process of data integration or data migration from one platform to another is not a technical problem.  It does not create a technical effect.  This process still uses the standard computing functionalities and apparatus to execute computer programs to implement such methods.  This does not improve any technical aspects of a general-purpose computer.  Lastly, the process of reducing or eliminating difficulty in reconciling vend events and EFTs due to processing fee deductions, bundling of multiple transactions in each EFT or auditing third party processors or reconciling transactions and inventory levels for maintaining proper stock is normally performed by a standard computer.  This is not an improvement in the operation of the computing apparatus.  Hence, in summary the comments provided does [sic] not relate to particular technical limitations or involves [sic] any technical ingenuity.  It is merely a generic computer implementation. 

   Finally, with regard to the comments submitted by, H.  Brock Kolls, it was stated in Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd [2020] FCAFC 86 [73], it is stated that “The role of expert evidence in construing the patent specification and the claims is limited.” and “Typically, the Court will read the specification with the benefit of expert evidence as to the meaning of words that are terms of art, or with an explanation of technical concepts relevant to the understanding of the invention as described and claimed.  The question of construction remains with the Court.”

   I have concluded that your claimed invention does not solve any technical problem and merely requires a generic computer implementation.  The alleged invention is merely a [sic] "administrative" innovation rather than a "technical" innovation.  The stated benefit is considered as a generic benefit of known computer technology and is unlikely to amount as a contribution to the art and the substance of the invention.  Moreover, your alleged invention is considered nothing more than an instruction to implement a scheme for automating the auditing and accountability of transactions from various vending machines, and as such does not result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer irrespective of the data being processed or the platform the data is from. 

   Therefore, the claimed invention, as a matter of substance, does not define subject matter suitable for a patent.  The previous manner of manufacture objection is maintained.

2. It would appear that the examiner considered that the contribution lay in a scheme for accounting and auditing vending machine transactions and that the alleged invention is an “administrative” innovation rather than a “technical” innovation.

APPLICABLE LAW

1. The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (the Raising the Bar Act) came into effect on 15 April 2013.  As the application was filed after 15 April 2013, the application is subject to the amended provisions of the Patents Act and Regulations. Under subsection 49(1) of the Actthe standard of proof that applies to the application is the balance of probabilities. This means, that I must accept the application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the application complies with the Act, otherwise, I can refuse the application if not so satisfied on the balance of probabilities.

1. Paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Act reads:

   Subject to subsection (2), an invention is a patentable invention for the purposes of a standard patent if the invention, so far as claimed in any claim:

(a)   is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies;

Case Law

1. I consider the following Court decisions to be relevant in determining whether the application satisfies s18(1)(a):

   National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents [1959] HCA 67, (1959) 102 CLR 252 (“NRDC”)

Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150 (“Research Affiliates”)

D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35 (“Myriad”)

Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177 (“RPL Central”)

Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd [2020] FCAFC 86 (“Rokt”)

Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161 (“Encompass”)

Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 202 (“Aristocrat 21”)

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (“Aristocrat 22”)

1. In NRDC the High Court provided a statement of the law on manner of manufacture at 269:

   "The right question is: 'Is this a proper subject of letters patent according to the principles which have been developed for the application of s. 6 of the Statute of Monopolies?' "

1. The Court further in NRDC at 275 set out the legal principle that:

   "a process, to fall within the limits of patentability which the context of the Statute of Monopolies has supplied, must be one that offers some advantage which is material, in the sense that the process belongs to a useful art as distinct from a fine art ...  that its value to the country is in the field of economic endeavour."

1. The High Court though was not laying down a precise formulation that can be applied unthinkingly.  In Myriad at 23:

   “This Court in NRDC did not prescribe a well-defined pathway for the development of the concept of ‘manner of manufacture’ in its application to unimagined technologies with unimagined characteristics and implications.  Rather, it authorised a case-by-case methodology.”

1. The Court in Myriad decision at 144 provided that a case-by-case approach must have regard to substance of the claimed invention, not simply the form:

“Whatever words have been used, the matter must be looked at as one of substance and effect must be given to the true nature of the claim.”

1. The Court in Research Affiliates decision stressed on the importance of understanding the invention as a matter of substance and not as a matter of form at 106:

“The determination whether the claimed invention is truly ‘an artificially created state of affairs’ in satisfaction of NRDC is made not by some mechanistic application of the criterion of artificiality or physical effect, but by an understanding of the claimed invention itself.  The invention is to be understood as a matter of substance and not merely as a matter of form.”

1. The Court in RPL Central decision having considered Research Affiliates and Myriad further confirmed the approach of understanding the invention as a matter of substance and provided guidance in determining manner of manufacture for inventions implemented using computers at 96 – 98, 104 and 107:

   “A claimed invention must be examined to ascertain whether it is in substance a scheme or plan or whether it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology.  The basis for the analysis starts with the fact that a business method, or mere scheme, is not, per se, patentable.  The fact that it is a scheme or business method does not exclude it from properly being the subject of letters patent, but it must be more than that.  There must be more than an abstract idea; it must involve the creation of an artificial state of affairs where the computer is integral to the invention, rather than a mere tool in which the invention is performed.  Where the claimed invention is to a computerised business method, the invention must lie in that computerisation.  It is not a patentable invention simply to ‘put’ a business method ‘into’ a computer to implement the business method using the computer for its well-known and understood functions.” [96]

“Is the mere implementation of an abstract idea in a well-known machine sufficient to render patentable subject matter?  Is the artificial effect that arises, because information is stored in RAM and there is communication over the Internet or Wi-Fi, sufficient?  Does any physical effect give rise to a manner of manufacture?  Are the mere presence of an artificial effect and economic utility, without more, sufficient to determine manner of manufacture?”  [97]

“It is not a question of stating precise guidelines but of deciding, in each case, whether the claimed invention, as a matter of substance not form, is properly the subject of a patent.”  [98]

“It is stated in the specification, and was accepted by the primary Judge, that the method could not be carried out without the use of a computer.  This alone cannot render the claimed invention patentable if it involves simply the speed of processing and the creation of information for which computers are routinely used.  In those circumstances, the claimed invention is still to the business method itself.  A computer-implemented business method can be patentable where the invention lies in the way in which the method is carried out in the computer.  This necessitates some ingenuity in the way in which the computer is utilised (Research Affiliates).”  [104]

“Simply putting a business method or scheme into a computer is not patentable unless there is an invention in the way in which the computer carries out the scheme or method.  Is the fact that the scheme cannot practically be implemented without a computer, that is, that the computer is integral to the working of the scheme, sufficient to make it patentable?  The answer is not straightforward because this is not a case where the computer simply processes the information entered by the user, for example by using an algorithm, or retrieves information from the Internet in response to a user’s question.”  [107]

1. The Court in Rokt and Encompass decisions is consistent with the approach discussed in Research Affiliates and RPL Central.

1. The Full Court in Aristocrat 21 found that a game implemented on an electronic gaming machine was not patentable. This decision was appealed to the High Court. In this High Court decision, the six judges were evenly divided on the outcome therefore there was no majority and no usual binding precedent set. As a result of the operation of s23(2)(a) of the Judiciary Act 1903, the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Aristocrat 21 that the invention concerned was not for a manner of manufacture was affirmed.  Also, although the split, the High Court affirmed the correctness of decisions in Research Affiliates, RPL Central, Rokt and Encompass. 

2. The principles from RPL Central and Research Affiliates have been summarised by the Delegate in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited [2016] APO 49 (Aristocrat ’16) at [35]:

“I conclude that it is relevant to consider a range of matters.  Without seeking to be exhaustive, these include:

·there must be more than an abstract idea, mere scheme or mere intellectual information;

·is the contribution of the claimed invention technical in nature;

·does the invention solve a technical problem within the computer or outside the computer;

·does the invention result in improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed;

·does the application of the method produce a practical and useful result;

·can it be broadly described as an improvement in computer technology;

·does the method merely require generic computer implementation;

·is the computer merely an intermediary or tool for performing the method while adding nothing of substance to the idea;

·is there ingenuity in the way in which the computer is utilised;

·does the invention involve steps that are foreign to the normal use of computers; and

·does the invention lie in the generation, presentation or arrangement of intellectual information.”

The Applicant’s submissions

1. In both AS1 and AS2, the Applicant submits a brief history of the prosecution of the application.  In this part, the Applicant also provides an update on the family members in the European and US Patent Offices and further appreciates the differences between the Australian and US patent systems. 

1. The Applicant makes a reference to Research Affiliates and a reference to Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd & Ors Rev 1 [2007] RPC 7 (“Aerotel”).  In particular, the Applicant submits:

   “However, it will be appreciated that in Research Affiliates the Full Court referred to Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd & Ors Rev 1 [2007] RPC 7 (Aerotel) at some length in its decision in the context of a wider discussion of the position in Europe and the UK. Specifically, that applying a test of a ‘technical contribution’ has similar flexibility and, in this area of technology can be useful in an analysis of an ‘artificial effect’.

   Accordingly, Applicant is of the view that the findings on the corresponding US and European applications tends to support the conclusion of the patentable nature of the subject matter in the present application.”

1. The Applicant further provides a declaration made on 15 July 2021 from H. Brock Kolls (Kolls’ declaration) which provides a concise summary of the benefits of the invention.

1. In providing the reasons to why claims 1 – 16 define a manner of manufacture the Applicant cites Myriad, RPL Central, Research Affiliates, Aristocrat ’16, Aristocrat ’20, Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCAFC 120. The applicant engages in the four-step approach formulated in Aerotel by UK authority.  The four-step approach is reproduced here:

   1.  Construe the claim;
   2.  Identify the substance;
   3.  Ask whether the substance of the claim lies within established principles of what does not constitute a patentable invention; and
   4.  If not, consider whether the substance otherwise lies outside of existing
   concepts of manner of manufacture and is to be treated as a “new class” of
   subject matter.

1. The Applicant also iterates a number of “signposts” that may be relevant to determine whether a computer implemented invention in substance is a manner of manufacture from Aristocrat ’16 at 35. Aristocrat ’16 paragraph 35 has been reproduced earlier at 58.

2. The Applicant considers that the problem is technical because:

   “…the interrelated claim elements use a particular computer system structure and process to determine whether a product dispenser is to be configured to dispense a product automatically.  That is, without manual interaction.  The claim elements are therefore related to a particular computer system (i.e., a vending machine) that is used to solve a particular technical problem within the realm of computer technology.”

1. The Applicant further provides references from RPL Central, Rokt and Apple, Inc.  [2019] APO 3 highlighting the assessment of claims from a holistic point of view in consideration of the combination of interworking features of the claims to identify the “substance”.

1. The Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner’s characterisation of the substance being “a scheme for reconciling auditing of transaction amounts and inventory monitoring” does not identify the interworking features of the claimed invention.

1. The Applicant stresses that “often computer-implement inventions are defined by functional features” and that “the invention needs to be assessed as a matter of substance and the form of the claims does not influence this assessment”. 

2. The Applicant further states that the claimed invention solves a technical problem (original emphasis):

   “…using data from a transaction-type device (which is a particular type of device and is in communication with a product dispenser) to determine whether a product should be dispensed at a product dispenser.  The problem is technical in nature because the interrelated claim elements use a particular computer system structure and process to determine whether a product dispenser is to be configured to dispense a product automatically.  That is, without manual interaction.  The claim elements are therefore related to a particular computer system that is used to solve a particular technical problem within the realm of computer technology.”

1. Moreover, the Applicant suggests that the invention defines a technological problem and technological solution:

“The pending claims entail an unconventional technological solution of using a class of transaction to determine whether a transaction is valid, rather than a third-party service, to a technological problem of automatically validating purchases made at unattended product dispensers.  More specifically, the present claims provide an unconventional technological solution (generating a reconciliation token that stays with the transaction across multiple computer systems) to a technological problem (how to track and/or identify settlement of certain transactions for unattended product dispensers).”

1. In AS2, the Applicant adds that the claims as proposed to be amended “clearly relate to an improved vending machine system that has the advantage of providing the ability to dispense items at a vending machine without having to transmit actual payment information, resulting in improved data security, therefore producing a physical effect”.

Consideration of the Applicant’s submissions  

The problem

1. The Applicant submits (original emphasis):

“The problem is technical in nature because the interrelated claim elements use a particular computer system structure and process to determine whether a product dispenser is to be configured to dispense a product automatically.  That is, without manual interaction.  The claim elements are therefore related to a particular computer system (i.e., a vending machine) that is used to solve a particular technical problem within the realm of computer technology.”

1. A fair read of the specification clearly outlines the difficulties that arise when processing cashless transactions and reconciling transactions at individual transaction level.  I acknowledge the fact that without transaction level detail vending equipment operators may face difficulties in reconciling transactions, accurately auditing the vending equipment, and a general lack of oversight in managing EFT reconciliations against individual transactions, and inventory control.  The claimed invention appears to address the problem of accountability and auditability of transactions for vending equipment.

1. The Applicant suggests that a particular computer system structure and process is used to determine whether a product is to be dispensed automatically from a product dispenser. 

1. I acknowledge the arrangement of technology in the form of a vending network is utilised in arriving to the claimed invention.  The components of the arrangement of technology to implement the claimed invention include a vending equipment, a transaction-type device, server switch(es), third party servers, databases, and a network.  However, the arrangement of technology implementing the alleged invention is not defined to any further level of specificity than the discussion under “The claimed invention” and “The body of the specification” above. 

1. The claimed invention does not utilise any particular computer systems structure to determine whether a product is to be dispensed.  Data in the form of unique identifiers, reconciliation tokens and state information are used across the vending network to determine whether a product is to be dispensed.

2. The problem solved by the present invention appears to be a business problem of reconciling and/or auditing transactions for items or services vended from a vending machine. 

3. The Applicant further submits:

   “Even if the skilled person were to consider that determining whether a transaction is valid is based on non-technical considerations ‘utilising well-known generic implementations of computers’, the problem of how to use this data to dispense product is a technical problem.”

1. The specification does not delve any further on “how to use this data to dispense product”.  I can only deduce that once a processing state is considered a match, the processor communicates “a match” information to a transaction-type device via a network in a standard manner.  The transaction-type device then operates in its usual manner to communicate with, or control, the vending machine in order for the vending machine to dispense the product.  Therefore, once again, the problem appears to be a business problem of determining whether to dispense an item based on information that is processed and analysed by the components of the system.  The claimed invention appears to dispense a product using a set of rules applied by the components of the vending network.  The verification of a transaction is based on a set of rules that is applied to the information circulated through the network/system.  I do not see the problem to be “how to use this data to dispense product” rather see it as “when and/or if this data is used to dispense the product”.  This problem is not technical and is a business problem.  In addition, the use of data in this case relates to the content or meaning of the data and this is of a business, non-technical nature.  The specification does not overcome any technical limitations in sending or receiving data regardless of the content or meaning of the data.  In view of this, I cannot see a problem that is technical from reading the specification.

1. The Applicant also submits:

   “…the present claims provide an unconventional technological solution (generating a reconciliation token that stays with the transaction across multiple computer systems) to a technological problem (how to track and/or identify settlement of certain transactions for unattended product dispensers).”

1. At 20, I have summarised the problems when cashless transactions are handled as described in the specification.  It is clear from these paragraphs that vending machines are already able to transfer information over a network to third party servers.  Hence the invention is not intending to solve the problem of how to transfer vending machine data over a network.  At this point, the question is whether tracking or identifying settlement of transaction constitutes a solution to a technological problem to be solved.  I am not satisfied that tracking or identifying a transaction for settlement in the current application is solving a technical problem, rather, the tracking of the transactions in the current application is solving a business administrative problem to allow for better reconciliation of transactions.   

1. Based on the above considerations, I consider that the alleged invention does not solve a technical problem within or outside the computer. 

The solution

1. The Applicant submits that the claimed invention provides a technical solution by way of generating a reconciliation token that stays with transactions across multiple computer systems:

“The pending claims entail an unconventional technological solution of using a class of transaction to determine whether a transaction is valid, rather than a third-party service, to a technological problem of automatically validating purchases made at unattended product dispensers.  More specifically, the present claims provide an unconventional technological solution (generating a reconciliation token that stays with the transaction across multiple computer systems) to a technological problem (how to track and/or identify settlement of certain transactions for unattended product dispensers).”

1. Paragraph [0031] of the specification indicates that “reconciliation token” and “unique identifier” can be used interchangeably:

   “…the terms ‘reconciliation token’ and ‘unique identifier’ can be used interchangeably. Embodiments of the invention are intended to cover any type of unique identifier including, but not limited to, a reconciliation token or any other device, code, or identifying instrument with similar functionality.”

Adding unique identifiers to a transaction that is maintained throughout the vending network or across multiple computer systems is not considered technical.  The specification does not address any technical limitations in creating or adding such identifiers or tokens to the transactions.  The implementation of this would require standard computing processing and the solution is not considered to be a technical solution to a problem.  This relates to an administrative arrangement for easier tracking of individual transactions.

1. I turn to figures 7 and 8 and the corresponding disclosure provided in the specification, as these passages somewhat represent the alleged invention.  At step 702, the transaction-type device generates transaction data comprising unique transaction identifier.  At this stage, the specification does not disclose how this data is generated, instead it discloses what data is generated.  Given the broad description of the transaction-type device including a vending equipment controller it is clear to me that transaction-type devices contain a processor.  Generating data or unique identifiers is a standard function of a processor.  Similarly, creating a reconciliation token by a processor, whether or not comprising the unique identifier, is also considered to be standard functions of a processor. 

2. The system that implements the method is a network of vending machines and computing devices.  The specification indicates that the server switch can permit accountability for transactions, facilitate audit of servers, and facilitate generation of reports using the network, reconciliation tokens and processing states which in operation may reconcile transactions and/or EFTs to manage the operator business.  From Kolls’ declaration and the specification as a whole, the reconciliation token is presented as useful “to avoid duplicate transactions” as the reconciliation token appears to stay with a transaction across the network.  The transaction processing state is presented to be useful as this may help facilitate the reconciliation of the transaction by comparing said state to predefined states.   

1. The transaction-type device creates unique identifier which is sent to a processor as a data packet with associated first processing state.  The processor creates the reconciliation token comprising the unique identifier (as claimed), stores the reconciliation token and the first processing state in a database, and sends the reconciliation token and data indicative of the transaction to a destination server.  There is no detailed discussion in the specification on how the token, and data packets are created by the transaction-type device and the processor.  Once the initial transaction data is received by the processor, another unique identifier in the form of a reconciliation token is created by the processor.  The processor then stores the reconciliation token and the first processing state and communicates the reconciliation token and data indicative of the transaction to a destination server.  The destination server then responds with a second processing state and the reconciliation token.  The processor then compares the response with stored predefined sequence(s) of transaction processing states.  When there is a match of the processing states, the processor then causes a dispensing operation via a dispensing mechanism at the vending machine.  The data generating, processing and analysing steps are performed by standard computing processors/device without any further level of specificity.

1. The information, identifier and/or reconciliation token sent and/or received across the systems can be done over a wired or wireless-type network.  The examples of the network are presented in paragraph [0038] of the specification and are clearly described as standard networks that facilitate transfer of information between the components of the system:

   “Examples of a network 106 can include, but are not limited to, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), the Internet, a global network, a wireless network, a wired network, and any combination thereof.  Wireless network communications can be implemented, for example, by way of GSM, GPRS, CDMA2000, 1XRTT, EDGE, 802.11 types and kinds including but not limited to 'a', 'b', 'g', 'n', 900MHz, 2.4GHz, 5GHz, spread spectrum, open wireless standards, proprietary wireless techniques, 3G, 3.5G, 4G technologies ('G' stands for generation), and any other wireless-type communication device, standard, or methodology.  Wired network communications can be implemented, for example, by way of Ethernet, Firewire, serial communications, USB, RS232, and any other wired-type communication device, standard, or methodology.  In one embodiment, a network can be the Internet, which may be referred to as a global network.”

1. The specification does not go into any further detail on how the actual dispensing operation is performed at the vending machine.  From at least this disclosure, the actual dispensing of the vend item appears to be nothing more than the normal operation of the transaction-type device in the form of, but not limited to, a vending equipment controller.  Upon matching the processing states the processor may send the response to the transaction-type device.  The transaction type device may then communicate with or control the vending equipment as per its normal operation for the dispensing operation to be performed. 

1. Following on from this, I acknowledge the interworking arrangements of the different computing devices within the system to determine whether a dispensing operation is to be caused.  However, as discussed above, from the reading of the specification, the application of each of the devices of the system is an application that merely uses standard computer technology.  Each of the devices is performing operations that it normally performs independently irrespective of other components.  What links the system together is the information that is passed from one component to another to perform the claimed invention.  The information passed from one component to another is also created and communicated in a standard manner.  Thus, the components appear to work more as a concatenation of standard computing components and operations to implement the claimed invention.

1. I find no ingenuity in how the computing elements are utilised.  The elements individually and in combination are utilised in a standard manner.  Neither the elements alone nor the combination of the elements produce any improvement in computer technology. 

2. The Applicant, in both AS1 and AS2, suggests that the vending machine is improved due to improved data security when the machine is utilised.  The solution to achieving the alleged improvement in security is through the use of specific data i.e., dispensing items at a vending machine without transmitting actual payment information (as claimed).  I concede that not sending payment information over a network helps prevent transmission of information related to the user of the vending machine.  However, the ingenuity only lies in selecting the type of information to send from the vending machine to servers over a network to verify a transaction.  The alleged invention uses tokens, identifiers and transaction states to facilitate dispensing of an item.  The selection of the type of data utilised in the transmission does not amount to any technical improvements to the vending machine.  Rather, it is an administrative decision to select one type of data over another.  Furthermore, the generation of tokens, identifiers and state information is considered standard function(s) of a processor.  Whilst providing the least amount of personal or transaction data reduces the chances of such information to be misused, I do not see any technical improvements made to any component of the vending machine or the vending network which technically improves the security of data.   

The substance

1. The essence of the alleged invention appears to relate to assigning, analysing, and comparing data associated with transactions to determine whether to dispense an item using a vending network.  I am not satisfied that the generation of a reconciliation token using the unique identifier (as claimed) is anything more than a result of standard functions of the computing elements of the system.  In this regard, the alleged invention appears to be in substance directed towards a mere scheme for tracking electronic transactions over a vending network using data labelling in the form of unique identifiers and reconciliation tokens.  The ingenuity or contribution of the invention lies in the realm of business administration and is not something that I consider technical.  I acknowledge the Applicant’s submission of creating a reconciliation token that stays with the transaction across multiple computing systems.  However, I am not satisfied that this amounts to a technological solution to the problem at hand.  The generation, creation and analysis of the data (in the form of unique identifiers, reconciliation token and states) do not address any technical limitation of the computing elements utilised in performing the invention.  Rather, the data is used to determine whether a set of rules is adhered to, prior to dispensing a product or service from vending equipment and allowing for better accountability and auditability of the vending equipment.  The ingenuity lies in the idea of using such data to aid a scheme to reconcile electronic transactions through analysis and comparison of the data. 

2. The Applicant submits that:

   “The characterisation chosen by the Examiners seems to bear little resemblance to the subject matter that is actually claimed.  The ‘scheme’ ultimately controls a dispensing operation via a dispensing mechanism at the vending machine after the electronic transaction is confirmed.”

1. The “scheme” aids in determining whether an item is to be dispensed via a dispensing mechanism at the vending machine after an electronic transaction is confirmed.  However, I also note that the mechanisms controlling the dispensation occur in a standard manner.  The decision to dispense is done through the verification of transaction states and use of identifiers.  Therefore, the ingenuity is not in how to control the dispensing, rather is in how to determine whether to dispense an item.  The determination of whether an item or service is to be dispensed from the vending equipment utilises business administrative rules.  In essence, I see this as verifying transaction steps prior to dispensing an item rather than controlling the actual working of the mechanics of the dispenser or the vending machine.

1. The claimed invention does not produce a technical effect, nor does it solve a technical problem.  The substance of the invention lies in the scheme addressing a business administration problem.  Therefore, claim 1 is not for a manner of manufacture.

1. The alleged invention allows for a better administrative arrangement to reconcile, audit and/or report on physical inventory and different transaction forms.  This may be practical and useful to the extent it may provide benefit in individual accounting of vended products, reconciliation of bills, coins and cashless transactions, and restocking of vending equipment.  However, at the current level of abstraction, as a matter of substance, the ingenuity lies in the scheme and any usefulness comes in effect by implementing the scheme on standard computing systems and vending machines.  Any practical and useful result produced from the alleged invention stems from within the realm of business administration and not of any technical advance.  I also note that while the presence of a practical and useful result is a useful factor in considering whether there is a patentable subject matter, it is not in itself determinative of a finding of patentability.

2. I have discussed the difference of scope between independent claims 1, 7 and 16 at [30]-[34] above. Regardless of the difference, the substance of claims 1, 7 and 16 remains essentially the same for the reasons provided above, and therefore claims 7 and 16 are also not for a manner of manufacture.

3. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-15 add filtering of electronic transaction based on the first transaction processing state, and auditing the destination server; generating report(s) based on the filtered electronic transaction; analysing the electronic transaction and determining action(s); and including a transaction processing state field to the reconciliation token.  Some of the other features also include the electronic transaction auditing module determining unique identifier(s) and transaction processing states based in part on state criteria; generating report(s) comprising the electronic transaction; and receiving confirmation from the vending machine that a product has been dispensed.  I find that the filtering, analysing and auditing features only relate to standard data processing and merely utilise standard computer systems as a mere tool for the computation of the data.  The inclusion of a processing state field is a decision on the type of data that may be required from an administrative viewpoint and only requires standard computer implementation.  Receiving data from any component of the network including the vending machine does not add anything technical to the substance of the invention.  Consequently, I do not see any technical problems being solved, or technical solutions being provided, by the dependent claims.  In my opinion, the dependent claims add only further details to the scheme defined in the independent claims, hence the additional features defined in the dependent claims cannot contribute to providing a patentable invention.  

CONCLUSION

1. I conclude that the claimed invention, as a matter of substance, is not for a manner of manufacture.  I am of the view that there is no material in the specification that could result in the applicant overcoming my finding and further examination will serve no useful purpose.  I therefore refuse the application.

SECTION 40 OBSERVATION

100.I will note that, some of the claimed features (for example: “the originating transaction data does not include payment data associated with a method of payment used at the transaction-type device”, “a reconciliation token comprising the at least one unique identifier” and “wherein the electronic transaction is confirmed by the at least one processor without use of the payment data”) may possibly be deficient under section 40 of the Act.  There is very little in the way of detail in the specification beyond what is mentioned in the claims as proposed to be amended.  This could raise questions about whether the claims are supported by subject matter disclosed in the specification and/or whether the proposed amendments to the claims are allowable.  However, given my conclusion on manner of manufacture, I do not find it necessary to make a formal determination on the matter.

Anish Singh

Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents

Annex A

Claims

The claimed invention is:

1. A method of providing electronic transaction auditing at a vending machine, comprising:

   receiving, by at least one processor coupled to at least one memory, originating transaction data comprising at least one unique identifier for an electronic transaction from a transaction-type device at the vending machine, wherein the at least one unique identifier is associated with a first transaction processing state that is associated with the electronic transaction, and wherein the originating transaction data does not include payment data associated with a method of payment used at the transaction-type device;

   generating, by the at least one processor, a reconciliation token comprising the at least one unique identifier;

   storing, by the at least one processor, the reconciliation token and the first transaction processing state in a data storage device;

   communicating, by the at least one processor, the reconciliation token and data indicative of the electronic transaction to a destination server;

   receiving, by the at least one processor, from the destination server, the reconciliation token and data indicative of a response conveying a second transaction processing state associated with the electronic transaction and the reconciliation token;

   comparing, by the at least one processor, the second transaction processing state to a stored predefined sequence of transaction processing states comprising a predefined combination of transaction processing states in a specific order including the first transaction processing state, wherein the electronic transaction is confirmed when the second transaction processing state matches an expected transaction processing state within the predefined sequence of transaction processing states according to the specific order; and

   causing, by the at least one processor, a dispensing operation via a dispensing mechanism at the vending machine after the electronic transaction is confirmed, wherein the electronic transaction is confirmed by the at least one processor without use of the payment data.

2.  The method of claim 1, further comprising filtering the electronic transaction based at least in part on the first transaction processing state of the electronic transaction.

3.  The method of claim 2, further comprising auditing the destination server based at least in part on a filtered electronic transaction. 

4.  The method of claim 1, further comprising wherein the reconciliation token further comprises a transaction processing state field, based at least in part on at least one transaction processing state criteria. 

5.  The method of claim 2, further comprising generating at least one report based at least in part on the filtered electronic transaction. 

6.  The method of claim 1, further comprising: analyzing the electronic transaction; and determining at least one action based at least in part on the analyzing result. 

7.  A system for providing electronic transaction auditing at a vending machine, comprising:

a server; and

at least one electronic transaction auditing module functionally coupled to the server and configured to:

receive at least one unique identifier for an electronic transaction from a transaction-type device at the vending machine, wherein the at least one unique identifier is associated with a first transaction processing state that is associated with the electronic transaction;

generate a reconciliation token comprising the at least one unique identifier;

store the reconciliation token and the first transaction processing state in a data storage device;
communicate the reconciliation token and data indicative of the electronic transaction to a destination server;

receive, from the destination server, the reconciliation token and data indicative of a response conveying a second transaction processing state associated with the electronic transaction and the reconciliation token;

compare the second transaction processing state to a stored predefined sequence of transaction processing states comprising a predefined combination of transaction processing states in a specific order including the first transaction processing state, wherein the electronic transaction is confirmed when the second transaction processing state matches an expected transaction processing state within the predefined sequence of transaction processing states according to the specific order; and

cause a dispensing operation via a dispensing mechanism at the vending machine after the electronic transaction is confirmed, wherein the electronic transaction is confirmed without use of the payment data.

8.  The system of claim 7, wherein the at least one electronic transaction auditing module is further configured to determine the at least one unique identifier and a transaction processing state based at least in part on at least one transaction processing state criteria. 

9.  The system of claim 7, wherein the at least one electronic transaction auditing module is further configured to generate at least one report based at least in part on a filtered electronic transaction. 

10.  The system of claim 7, wherein the at least one electronic transaction auditing module is further configured to: analyze the electronic transaction; and determine at least one action based at least in part on the analyzed result. 

11.  The method of claim 1, wherein the electronic transaction comprises a pre-settled transaction state, and the method further comprises generating a report comprising the electronic transaction, wherein the report provides a comparison of transaction data associated with the electronic transaction and the response.

12.  The system of claim 7, wherein the at least one electronic transaction auditing module is further configured to filter the electronic transaction based at least in part on the first transaction state of the electronic transaction. 

13.  The system of claim 12, wherein the at least one electronic transaction auditing module is further configured to audit the destination server based at least in part on the filtered electronic transaction.

14.  The system of claim 7, wherein the electronic transaction comprises a presettled transaction state, and the at least one electronic transaction auditing module is further configured to generate a report comprising the electronic transaction, wherein the report provides a comparison of transaction data associated with the electronic transaction and the response. 

15.  The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from the vending machine, a confirmation that a product was dispensed. 

16.  A system comprising: 

a vending machine configured to dispense at least one product via a vending mechanism;

a transaction-type device associated with the vending machine;

a destination server; and

a server switch in communication with the vending machine, the transaction-type device,

and the destination server, the server switch comprising:

at least one memory that stores computer-executable instructions; at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and execute the computer executable instructions to:

receive originating transaction data comprising at least one unique identifier for an electronic transaction from the transaction-type device, wherein the originating transaction data is associated with a first transaction processing state that is associated with the electronic transaction, and wherein the originating transaction data does not include payment data associated with a method of payment used at the transaction-type device;

generate a reconciliation token comprising the at least one unique identifier;

store the reconciliation token and the first transaction processing state;

communicate the reconciliation token and data indicative of the electronic transaction to the destination server;

receive, from the destination server, the reconciliation token and data indicative of a response conveying a second transaction processing state associated with the electronic transaction and the reconciliation token; 

compare the second transaction processing state to a stored predefined sequence of transaction processing states comprising a predefined combination of transaction processing states in a specific order including the first transaction processing state, wherein the electronic transaction is confirmed when the second transaction processing state matches an expected transaction processing state within the predefined sequence of transaction processing states according to the specific order; and

trigger a dispensing operation via the dispensing mechanism at the vending machine after the electronic transaction is confirmed, wherein the electronic transaction is confirmed by the at least one processor without use of the payment data.