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

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.

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

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

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

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading The Coca-Cola Company

Details

AGLC: The Coca-Cola Company [2023] APO 9
Case: [2023] APO 9
Decision Date: 13 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Patent Office received a patent application filed by The Coca-Cola Company. The invention related to systems and methods for providing electronic transaction auditing and accountability. The application was objected to on the basis that the claims did not define a manner of manufacture. The applicant provided submissions and proposed amendments to the claims. The examiner concluded that the claimed invention was not a manner of manufacture and refused the application. The applicant argued that the invention solved a technical problem of automatically validating purchases made at unattended product dispensers and provided a technical solution by generating a reconciliation token that stays with transactions across multiple computer systems. The examiner disagreed, finding that the invention did not solve a technical problem and did not involve any technical ingenuity. The invention was found to be a business arrangement to reconcile, audit and/or report on transactions using standard computing elements. The claimed invention was found to be a mere scheme rather than an improvement in computer technology. The examiner concluded that the claims, as a matter of substance, were not for a manner of manufacture and refused the application.

Orders