DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is directed to an information terminal (i.e., a machine), claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., machine or manufacture), and claim 17 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claims 1 and 9 (claim 1 being representative) is:
acquire a commodity code for an item to be purchased;
send a registration request including the acquired commodity code to request to perform sales registration on the corresponding item; and
display evaluation information associated with the commodity code when sends the evaluation information in response to the registration request, the evaluation information including an evaluation of the item by another person.
The abstract idea of claim 17 is:
inputting identification information for a commodity to be purchased by a purchaser on a store sales floor;
sending a request to perform sales registration of the commodity identified by the input identification information; and
displaying evaluation information returned in response to the request to perform sales registration of the commodity when the evaluation information is associated with identification information for the commodity, the evaluation information including an evaluation of the commodity from another person.
The abstract idea steps italicized above are directed to facilitating sales process by means of a commodity self-registration system. This is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers commercial activity. This is further supported by paragraphs 0003 - 0004 of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the claim is directed to evaluating products based on consumer experience and giving feedback, which constitutes a process that, under its BRI, could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. This is further supported by paragraphs 0003 – 0004 of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP §2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: An information terminal to be operated by a purchaser on a store sales floor to register commodities for purchase; server device supporting registration of commodities to be purchased; a commodity code reader configured to read commodity codes on commodities to be purchased; a display screen configured to display information to a purchaser and receive input operations from the purchaser; a communication interface configured to communicate with a server device; a processor; from the commodity code reader or an input operation via the display screen; to the server device via the communication interface; the server device; in the server device on the display screen; the server device.
Claim 9 recites the following additional elements: A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions; an information terminal to be operated by a purchaser on a store sales floor to register commodities for purchase; information terminal; from a commodity code reader or an input operation via a display screen; to a server device via a communication interface; the server device.
Claim 17 recites the following additional elements: Self-registration systems; to a server; on a display screen; from the server; to the server; on the server.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP §2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in paragraphs 0067 – 0075 of applicant’s specification as filed, for example. Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system.
Accordingly, these additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP §2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitates the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Further, the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Claims 2, 10, and 18, further narrow the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: server device. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 3 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: processor; display screen; server device; comparison screen. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 4, further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: comparison screen; replacement button; processor; server device; after the replacement button is pressed and a commodity code associated with the similar commodity is acquired from the commodity code reader or an input operation via the display screen. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Regarding claims 5 and 13 applicant further narrows the abstract idea with additional step(s). There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, similar to above, is also not patent eligible.
Claims 6 and 14, further narrow the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: processor (claim 6); server device. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 15-16 applicant further narrows the abstract idea with additional step(s). There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, similar to above, is also not patent eligible.
Claims 11 and 19, further narrow the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: display screen; comparison screen. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 12, further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: comparison screen; replacement button; device; after the replacement button is pressed and a commodity code associated with the similar commodity is acquired from the commodity code reader or an input operation via the display screen. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 20, further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: comparison screen; replacement button; to the server; when the replacement button has been pressed. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)1 and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sambe (US 20160203508).
Claims 1 and 9
Regarding claims 1 and 9 Sambe discloses:
(claim 1) An information terminal to be operated by a purchaser on a store sales floor to register commodities for purchase in conjunction with a server device supporting registration of commodities to be purchased, the information terminal comprising: {“As shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, the commodity sales processing system includes, in the retail store 100, facing-type POS (Point of Sales) apparatuses 10, a self-service POS apparatus 20, and a relay device 30. Further, as shown in FIG. 2, the commodity sales processing system includes in the retail store 100 a store server 40, a self-registration support server (hereinafter referred to as a support server) 50, and a router 60.” (paragraph 0031).}
(claim 1) a commodity code reader configured to read commodity codes on commodities to be purchased; {“The cashier 3 reads, with the scanner 11, a barcode affixed on a commodity 5 to be purchased by the customer 4.” (paragraph 0035).}
(claim 1) a display screen configured to display information to a purchaser and receive input operations from the purchaser; {In the registration screen the customer is allowed to view store information and is able to input (i.e., scan or photograph items in the sales floor) information into it (paragraph 0118).}
(claim 1) a communication interface configured to communicate with a server device; and {“The communication interface 104 is an interface for the data communication with the store server 40 and the support server 50 which are connected via the LAN 70.” (paragraph 0046).}
(claim 1) a processor configured to: {“The POS apparatus 10 or 20 includes a processor” (paragraph 0041).}
(claim 9) A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions, which when executed by an information terminal to be operated by a purchaser on a store sales floor to register commodities for purchase, causes the information terminal to perform a method comprising: {“The main memory 102 includes a nonvolatile memory unit and a volatile memory unit. The main memory 102 stores the operating system or application programs in the nonvolatile memory unit. Further, in some cases, the main memory 102 also stores data required by the processor 101 to control each section in the nonvolatile or volatile memory unit.” (paragraph 0044).}
(claims 1 & 9) acquire a commodity code for an item to be purchased from the commodity code reader or an input operation via the display screen; {A user captures a barcode on the item (paragraph 0119). The portable terminal sends the code to the server after detecting the barcode (paragraph 0121). “The touch panel 404 functions as an input device and a display device of the portable information terminal 400.” (i.e., via the display screen) (paragraph 0068).}
(claims 1 & 9) send a registration request including the acquired commodity code to the server device via the communication interface to request the server device to perform sales registration on the corresponding item {The user terminal transmits a commodity code to a server , which initiates a sales registration process by retrieving associated product data and generating commodity sales data (paragraphs 0119-0120 and 0123-0124).}
(claims 1 & 9) display evaluation information associated with the commodity code in the server device on the display screen when the server device sends the evaluation information in response to the registration request, the evaluation information including an evaluation of the item by another person {Upon capturing a commodity code, the portable terminal transmits it to a server, which retrieves and returns associated recommendation data from the store server (paragraphs 0124-0126, 0131). The terminal then displays the received information on the registration screen for the user (paragraphs 0133-0135, 0152-0153).}
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17 Sambe discloses:
A method for self-registration systems, the method comprising: {“According to an embodiment, a method for distributing purchase recommendations to a user terminal and tracking effectiveness of the purchase recommendations, includes the steps of: providing a self-registration program in the user terminal” (paragraph 0025).}
inputting identification information for a commodity to be purchased by a purchaser on a store sales floor; {“[T]he the customer carrying an information terminal having a wireless communication function [can] walk along a sales floor and input the data of a commodity the customer wants to purchase into the information terminal” (paragraph 0028).}
sending a request to a server to perform sales registration of the commodity identified by the input identification information; and {The user terminal transmits a commodity code to a server , which initiates a sales registration process by retrieving associated product data and generating commodity sales data (paragraphs 0119-0120 and 0123-0124).}
displaying, on a display screen, evaluation information returned from the server in response to the request to the server to perform sales registration of the commodity when the evaluation information is associated with identification information for the commodity on the server, the evaluation information including an evaluation of the commodity from another person. {Upon capturing a commodity code, the portable terminal transmits it to a server, which retrieves and returns associated recommendation data from the store server (paragraphs 0124-0126, 0131). The terminal then displays the received information on the registration screen for the user (paragraphs 0133-0135, 0152-0153).}
Claims 2, 10, and 18
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18 Sambe discloses:
wherein the evaluation information further includes information related to a similar commodity that has been set as similar to the item associated with the commodity code included in the registration request sent to the server device {When a commodity code is input and transmitted to the support server, the server retrieves recommendation data from the store server based on a recommendation code associated with the commodity (paragraphs 0123, 0128-0132).}
Claims 3, 11, and 19
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19 Sambe discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to cause the display screen to display the information related to the similar commodity along with the evaluation of the item on a comparison screen {After receiving both commodity sales data and recommendation data from the support server, the portable information terminal displays a “recommended commodity” button on the registration screen (paragraph 0136). Upon selection, the terminal displays a recommended commodity list containing the names and details of the similar commodities (paragraphs 0137-0140).}
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sambe in view of Borom (US 20150206227).
Claims 4 and 12
Regarding claims 4 and 12, while Sambe discloses the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly disclose:
the comparison screen includes a replacement button to receive a declaration to purchase the similar commodity instead of the item, and
send a request to the server device to register the similar commodity for purchase instead of the item after the replacement button is pressed and a commodity code associated with the similar commodity is acquired from the commodity code reader or an input operation via the display screen.
However, Borom, in a similar field of endeavor directed to an enhanced merchandising methodology for use in grocery and other retail applications, teaches:
the comparison screen includes a replacement button to receive a declaration to purchase the similar commodity instead of the item, and {A user interface presents a selected item and a substitute product, along with a “Replace” button. Selection of this button causes the substitute item to replace the original item in the shopping list (paragraph 0070).}
send a request to the server device to register the similar commodity for purchase instead of the item after the replacement button is pressed and a commodity code associated with the similar commodity is acquired from the commodity code reader or an input operation via the display screen. {When a user selects a “Replace” button associated with a substitute item, the original product on the shopping list is replaced (i.e., a request is made and registered) (paragraph 0070).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the tracking and distributions of product recommendations features of Sambe, to include the enhanced merchandising methodology features of Borom to reduce investment in overhead while providing value to the grocer or retailer or the food item vendors. (See paragraph 0016 of Borom).
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, while Sambe discloses the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly disclose:
the comparison screen includes a replacement button to receive a declaration to purchase the similar commodity instead of the commodity, and;
sending a request to the server to register the similar commodity for purchase instead of the commodity when the replacement button has been pressed.
However, Borom, in a similar field of endeavor directed to an enhanced merchandising methodology for use in grocery and other retail applications, teaches:
the comparison screen includes a replacement button to receive a declaration to purchase the similar commodity instead of the commodity, and {A user interface presents a selected item and a substitute product, along with a “Replace” button. Selection of this button causes the substitute item to replace the original item in the shopping list (paragraph 0070).}
sending a request to the server to register the similar commodity for purchase instead of the commodity when the replacement button has been pressed. {When a user selects a “Replace” button associated with a substitute item, the original product on the shopping list is replaced (i.e., a request is made and registered) (paragraph 0070)}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the tracking and distributions of product recommendations features of Sambe, to include the enhanced merchandising methodology features of Borom to reduce investment in overhead while providing value to the grocer or retailer or the food item vendors. (See paragraph 0016 of Borom).
Claims 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sambe in view of Cooper (US 20210374813).
Claims 5 and 13
Regarding claims 5 and 13, while Sambe discloses the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the evaluation of the item by another person is from another purchaser who previously purchased the item.
However, Cooper, in a similar field of endeavor directed to providing commissions, referral, and/or finder fees to purchases made by related users, teaches:
wherein the evaluation of the item by another person is from another purchaser who previously purchased the item {In the system, users who purchase a product are prompted to provide a review of that product. Each review is associated with a purchaser and stored in a review database (Table 7) (paragraphs 0025, 0049, 0086).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the tracking and distributions of product recommendations features of Sambe, to include the multilevel marketing (MLM) commission payment features of Cooper to provide users a method to join an MLM for free; to allow services to be distributed in a multi-level marketing system; and to allow both products and services to be reviewed by participants in the system . (See paragraph 0018 of Cooper).
Claim 6 and 14
Regarding claims 6 and 14, while Sambe discloses the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly disclose:
request an input of evaluation information from the purchaser regarding the item when the server device indicates the item is an evaluation target commodity in response to the registration request; and
transmit the evaluation information from the purchaser regarding the item to the server device after the input of the evaluation information from the purchaser regarding the item.
However, Cooper, in a similar field of endeavor directed to providing commissions, referral, and/or finder fees to purchases made by related users, teaches:
request an input of evaluation information from the purchaser regarding the item when the server device indicates the item is an evaluation target commodity in response to the registration request {When a user completes a purchase of a product, the system prompts the user to review the item (i.e., is an evaluation target). The prompting may be automatic based on events such as purchase completion or elapsed time since purchase (paragraphs 0049, 0082).}
transmit the evaluation information from the purchaser regarding the item to the server device after the input of the evaluation information from the purchaser regarding the item {After a user device prompts the purchaser to input a review (i.e., evaluation information) following a product purchase, the user device sends the user’s input to the administration network computer (paragraphs 0049, 0080).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the tracking and distributions of product recommendations features of Sambe, to include the multilevel marketing (MLM) commission payment features of Cooper to provide users a method to join an MLM for free; to allow services to be distributed in a multi-level marketing system; and to allow both products and services to be reviewed by participants in the system . (See paragraph 0018 of Cooper).
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sambe in view of Croes (US 20090063288).
Claims 7 and 15
Regarding claims 7 and 15, while Sambe discloses the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the evaluation of the item by another person is from a seller of the item.
However, Croes, in a similar field of endeavor directed product review information generation and management, teaches:
wherein the evaluation of the item by another person is from a seller of the item {When sellers are placing advertisements for products, they provide product review information (paragraphs 0016, 0019-0020).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the tracking and distributions of product recommendations features of Sambe, to include the product review management features of Croes to improve the utility and value of product reviews in an Internet sales platform, even after an item sells. (see paragraph 0005 of Croes).
Claim 8 and 16
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the combination of Sambe and Croes teaches the limitations set forth above.
Croes further teaches:
wherein the evaluation information is displayed with information specifying the seller who performed the evaluation of the item {A joint display shows the review and seller identification information (paragraph 0025).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Sambe and Croes, to include the product review management features of Croes to improve the utility and value of product reviews in an Internet sales platform, even after an item sells. (see paragraph 0005 of Croes).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/20/2025 have been carefully considered. The headings and page numbers below correspond to those used by applicant.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
On pages 8-10, applicant offer remarks regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101. While well taken, they are not persuasive.
Applicant offers on pages 8-10:
In general, the rejection of the pending claims as ineligible subject matter relies on ignoring the tangible recited aspects in favor of what amounts to a gist-style analysis untethered from the actual recited language of the claims. It should be obvious that once all recited tangible components/elements/aspects are ignored (that is, "read out" of the claims), only notionally abstract components/elements/aspects can remain. This manner of evaluating claims in this context is improper as the appropriate legal test is not whether the claims, once shorn by examiner quasi-editing of all things other than notionally abstract aspects, still incorporate or involve abstract aspects but whether the claims (as a whole) are directed to an abstract idea. That is, the test here is whether the claims cover an abstract idea as an abstract idea perse not merely relate to, concern, or involve, in some manner, an abstract idea.
Here, the rejection contends aspects recited (in claim 1) in connection with a configuration of "a processor" are abstract ideas because they "cover commercial activity." However, this is incorrect; the pointed to aspects do not "cover" a commercial activity per se but rather merely relate to a commercial activity in some manner. Claim 1 (as whole, rather than edited) covers an "information terminal to be operated by a purchaser on a store sales floor to register commodities for purchase in conjunction with a server device supporting registration of commodities to be purchased" and includes "a commodity code reader," "a display screen," "a communication interface," and "a processor configured [in a particular recited manner]." Stated as such, in whole, it should be readily apparent that claim 1 does not cover an abstract "commercial activity" but rather, in a manner similar to a cash register, supports the performance of a sales transaction or the like. Devices, systems, and methods that support, or relate to, the performance of a sales transaction are not themselves the sales transaction (i.e., the abstract concept of commercial activity) in much the same way the cash register used at the store is not a sales transaction.
Similarly, the alternative stated grounds alleging claim 1 covers "Mental Processes," fail in this context because, in addition to the various tangible components recited in claim 1, even the supposed "abstract idea" portions of claim 1 cannot support the contention. For example, how might "display evaluation information ... on the display screen" be performed only in the human mind? How might "send a registration request ... to the server device via the communication interface" be performed in the mind?
The rejection attempts to justify the ignoring of the tangible recited aspects by contending they are generic computing elements or the like. However, the misapplies Examiner Guidance in this context. Nothing supports the contention that the mere use of generic computing elements renders a claim ineligible subject matter nor that any actually recited elements may simply be ignored or "read out" of the claims by a perfunctory, gist- style assertation of obviousness. Consider that many (perhaps most) software-related inventions involve use of, or execution on, generic computing elements. Similarly, if some embodiments of the present claims may be implemented using generic computing elements, this does not itself preclude patentability nor permit ignoring of the recited claim elements alleged/asserted to be "generic." Furthermore, nothing of record establishes that "a processor" configured in the particular manner recited in claim 1 (and certain dependents thereof) is a generic computing element. That a particular configuration may be achieved, provided, or implemented via software or the like on a standard computer does not mean the recited configuration is necessarily generic or known. Applicant submits "a processor configured" in the manner of claim 1 is not a generic processor, but rather a specialized/non-generic processor in view of its specific/non-generic configuration as recited. That the recited processor configuration may be, in whole or in part, achieved by use of software is (or should be) substantially irrelevant to the subject matter eligibility analysis.
Additionally, embodiments of the claims represent specific, non-abstract improvements to existing technologies and related art of "information terminal[s] to be operated by a purchaser on a store sales floor to register commodities for purchase in conjunction with a server device supporting registration of commodities to be purchased" as described in conjunction with at least paragraph [0032] of the as-filed specification.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 recites steps of collecting, transmitting, and presenting data related to commodity transactions, which are commercial activities and data management steps performed for the purpose of supporting a retail purchase (i.e., abstract activities).
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims merely implement this abstract idea using generic computer components (e.g., information terminal, processor, display screen). The specification itself describes these as ordinary hardware components executing known operations (see paragraphs [0067] – [0074]).
Applicant’s contention that the processor is “non-generic” because of its configuration is not persuasive. The recited configuration merely causes the processor to execute the abstract business logic of transmitting and displaying data. There is no recitation of an improved computer function, algorithmic technique, or technical problem solution. Rather, the alleged improvement is to the sales transaction process itself, not to computer technology.
Applicant’s argument that “devices, systems, and methods that support or relate to a sales transaction are not themselves the sale transaction” is unpersuasive. The claims merely computerize a fundamental commercial practice. Automation of such abstract concepts does not render the invention patent-eligible.
Further, the claims do not recite any specific technological implementation that improves how the processor, display, or communication interface function. The “displaying of evaluation information” is a presentation of information, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, nothing in the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. The combination of generic hardware executing conventional data processing operations is insufficient to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. The recited components perform functions that are common in the field of retail computing terminals, as shown in applicant’s specification in paragraphs [0033] – [0038], for example.
Accordingly, the claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea and therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102
On pages 10-13, applicant offer remarks regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102. While well taken, they are not persuasive.
Applicant offers on pages 10-13:
Claim 1 and dependents
Claim 1 recites: "a processor configured to ... display evaluation information associated with the commodity code in the server device on the display screen when the server device sends the evaluation information in response to the registration request, the evaluation information including an evaluation of the item by another person."
The rejection points to portions of Sambe related to display of "recommendation data." However, the "recommendation" in Sambe concerns "one or more recommended products associated with the product." Sambe, Abstract. That is, the recommendation data in Sambe relates not to a recommendation or evaluation of the registered/scanned product or item itself but of another product or item "associated with" the registered/scanned product/item. " The recommendation code [NB: see Fig. 4] is a code for identifying a group of recommended commodities set for the commodity 5 determined according to a corresponding commodity code." Sambe, paragraph [0056] (emphasis added). That is, the recommended information presented in Sambe after an item is registered in a transaction is for another product/item, generally along the lines of an ancillary or complementary product. See, e.g., Sambe, paragraph [0026] ("a commodity related to a commodity the customer wants to purchase"). A recommended commodity in Sambe might be, for example, a salad dressing or sandwich bread when the already registered item/product is lettuce. In other examples, "the recommended commodity is a commodity which can be purchased at a preferential price if purchased with the [other] commodity." See Sambe, paragraph [0027]. Sambe teaches here related product promotion along the lines of suggesting a particular hotdog bun brand when hotdogs are already registered.
However, in any event, the recommended commodity in Sambe is not the commodity/item itself and thus no "server device sends the evaluation information ...
including an evaluation of the item by another person" because the recommendations in Sambe do not concern the "item to be purchased" itself but rather are for another item/commodity deemed to be related to the item.
As such, Sambe fails to anticipate claim 1 for at least this reason. Claims dependent on claim 1 are likewise allowable over this reference for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 9 and dependents
Claim 9 is rejected on substantially the same grounds as claim 1. Claim 9 similarly recites: "display evaluation information associated with the commodity code in the server device on the display screen when the server device sends the evaluation information in response to the registration request, the evaluation information including an evaluation of the item by another person."
As noted above, Sambe concerns providing recommendations of other related/ancillary/complementary items based on an initial registration event of a commodity/product/item. There is no disclosure pointed to in the rejection in which "an evaluation of the item by another person" is displayed to customer/purchaser in Sambe.
All portions pointed to in the rejection as supposedly concerning this recited aspect actually concern display of information for another, different item/product that may be related to the original item in some manner. For example, hotdog buns might be recommended after hotdogs are registered. But no evaluation (by another person or otherwise) of the registered item/product/commodity itself is displayed in Sambe.
Accordingly, Sambe fails to anticipate claim 9 for at least this reason. Claims dependent on claim 9 are likewise allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 9.
Claim 17 and dependents
Claim 17 is rejected on substantially the same grounds as claims 1 and 9.
Claim 17 similarly recites: "displaying, on a display screen, evaluation information returned from the server in response to the request to the server to perform sales registration of the commodity when the evaluation information is associated with identification information for the commodity on the server, the evaluation information including an evaluation of the commodity from another person."
As noted above, Sambe concerns providing recommendations for other related/ancillary/complementary items based on an initial registration event of a commodity/product/item.
There is no disclosure pointed to in the rejection in which "an evaluation of the commodity from another person" is displayed to customer/purchaser in Sambe. All portions pointed to in the rejection as supposedly concerning this recited aspect actually concern display of a recommendation for another, different item/product. This different/other product/item that may be related to the original item in some manner, but the Sambe recommendation is not a recommendation/evaluation of the original item/commodity itself. As such, there is no evaluation (by another person) or otherwise of the registered item/product/commodity itself displayed in Sambe.
Accordingly, Sambe fails to anticipate claim 17 for at least this reason. Claims dependent on claim 17 are likewise allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 17.
Sambe discloses that the store server retrieves product information relating to the product code, and that the information includes one or more recommended products associated with the product (see paragraphs [0052] – [0056]). Sambe further discloses that the recommendation information is information for introducing the commodity determined according to a corresponding commodity code (paragraph [0054]), which constitutes an evaluation or endorsement of that commodity by the store or manufacturer. The system transmits the product information to the user terminal through a wireless device and causes the self-registration program to display a user interface for accessing information about the recommended product (see paragraphs [0026] – [0027], [0128] – [0135]).
Such “evaluation recommendation”, under the BRI, is an evaluation of the product’s desirability or characteristics from another entity (e.g., the store or manufacturer). The claim does not require the evaluation to originate from an end-user consumer. Accordingly, Sambe anticipates the limitation.
For the same reasons, dependent claims are likewise anticipated by Sambe’s disclosure. Accordingly, rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 are maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
On pages 13-15, applicant offer remarks regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103. While well taken, they are not persuasive.
Applicant offers on pages 13-15:
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection - Claims 4, 12, and 20
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sambe in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0206227 to Borom et al. (hereinafter "Borom").
In this context, Borom is apparently alleged to teach or suggest aspects related to inclusion of "a replacement button" on a "comparison screen" or the like. Borom appears to concern generation/management of shopping lists or the like in a substantially unrelated context of virtual reality enhancements or the like. In any event, to extent such disclosure may or may not be relevant, Applicant submits Borom fails to cure the deficiencies in Sambe noted above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17. Accordingly, the office action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), claim 12 (dependent on claim 9), and claim 20 (dependent on claim 17) for at least this reason.
Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the rejection of claims 4, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sambe in view of Borom, be reconsidered and withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection - Claims 5-6 and 13-14
Claims 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sambe in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0374813 to Cooper (hereinafter "Cooper').
In this context, Cooper is apparently alleged to teach or suggest aspects related "the evaluation of the item by another person is from another purchaser" and/or a "request[ing] an input of evaluation information from the purchaser" or the like. Cooper appears to concern provision and collection of product reviews in a substantially unrelated context of multi-level marketing schemes or the like. In any event, to extent such disclosure may or may not be relevant, Applicant submits Cooper fails to cure the deficiencies in Sambe noted above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17. Accordingly, the office action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 4 and 6 (dependent on claim 1) and claims 13 and 14 (dependent on claim 9) for at least this reason.
Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the rejection of claims 5-6 and 13- 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sambe in view of Cooper, be reconsidered and withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection - Claims 7-8 and 15-16
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sambe in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0063288 to Croes (hereinafter "Croes").
In this context, Croes is apparently alleged to teach or suggest aspects related "the evaluation of the item by another person is from a seller of the item" or the like. Croes appears to concern electronic classified ads or the like. In any event, to extent such disclosure may or may not be relevant, Applicant submits Croes fails to cure the deficiencies in Sambe noted above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17.
Accordingly, the office action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 7 and 8 (dependent on claim 1) and claims 15 and 16 (dependent on claim 9) for at least this reason.
Borom teaches generating a comparison screen that allows a user to replace or compare items, including the use of graphical “replacement” or “comparison” elements (see paragraphs [0073] – [0080]). The combination with Sambe it would have been obvious to enhance Sambe’s product recommendation interface with comparative purchase options, which are common in the field of electronic retail terminals.
Cooper teaches obtaining and presenting product reviews from other purchasers in a marketing system (see paragraphs [0042] – [0045], [0063]). Incorporating Cooper’s teaching into Sambe’s recommendation framework would have been obvious enhancement to include customer sourced evaluations alongside manufacturer recommendations, as both references relate to improving purchase decision support in retail systems.
Croes teaches presenting product review information generated by sellers or other users and displaying such information to potential buyers (paragraphs [0015], [0021] – [0025]). It would have been obvious to integrate Croes’s evaluation features into Sambe’s recommendation display to provide additional context and credibility for recommended items.
In each combination, the secondary reference merely provides predictable variations of presenting evaluation data, whether from the manufacturer, purchaser, or seller, and therefore do not alter Sambe’s overall operation. The motivation to combine lies in improving user purchase decision making by providing richer evaluation content, a goal explicitly shared by all cited references.
Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 are maintained.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 CARLOS F MONTALVO whose telephone number is (703)756-5863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00AM - 5:30PM; First Fridays OOO.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status o