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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
The USPTO has retrieved certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). These papers have been placed of record in the file. A certified English translation is required but has not been filed. A certified English translation is necessary due to the presence of at least one intervening reference that could otherwise be relied upon in a future rejection.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome a rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Applicant is advised that a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in order for applicant to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). See 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e) or 37 CFR 1.55 and MPEP § 201.15, respectively. Failure to provide a certified translation would result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement filed April 16, 2026, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) or 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii) because it indicates that English translations have been provided, but no English translations have been provided. English language abstracts have been provided and have been considered as statements of relevance.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed January 13, 2026, are responsive to the office action mailed September 17, 2026. Claims 1-18 were previously pending. Claims 7-8, 15-16, and 18, were withdrawn from consideration pursuant to election filed June 9, 2025, and claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17, were considered. Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13, 14, and 17, have been amended, and replacement drawing figures 6, 7, and 11, have been filed. Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17, are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
Pertaining to the Drawings
The drawings were objected to in the previous office action because figures 6, 7, and 11, were illegible or only partially legible. The replacement drawing figures have rendered moot this objection and it is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 101 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant recites the claim language and refers to the specification’s description of the claimed subject matter, declaring that they solve “several known problems in the field of EC,” “improve the technical field of electronic commerce,” and are performed by an apparatus that is “not merely a generic computer, but a dedicated device comprising a particular assembly of distinct components configured to perform a specific set of operations which, together, realize a substantial technical improvement to the functioning of the device”. Remarks p.16. The specification merely describes an abstract process in more detail. No such “dedicated device comprising a particular assembly of distinct components configured to perform a specific set of operations which, together, realize a substantial technical improvement to the functioning of the device” is described in the specification. As noted in the rejection,
“If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).”
Applicant argues
“¶¶ [0005]-[0007] of the instant specification describe the technical problems in the related art, namely that unintended information linkage may be carried out between an EC website and a store, and a place at which a user can receive a product may be limited.” Ibid.
Applicant argues the technical solution is “detailed in ¶¶[0069]-[0075] and [0124]-[0129]” of the specification. Again, there is no technical solution to a technical problem that is recognizable in the claims and the specification at best describes an abstract process that may (or may not) improve upon prior art abstract processes. As noted in the rejection a more detailed abstract idea is still an abstract idea. No technical problem is identified and no technical solution to a technical problem is presented or described in the claims or in the specification.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 102 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abu Hamam (Paper No. 20250806; Patent No. US 10,902,400 B2).
Applicant cites all amended language and argues “The NFOA at page 11 cites Abu Haman (e.g., FIG. 5 and column 2, lines 18-37) with respect to the features of claim(s) 1. However, Applicant respectfully asserts that whether considered individually or in combination, Abu Haman fails to teach or suggest” the features. Remarks p.18. Applicant offers no further explanation or rationale for its position.
The office action does not cite those portions with regard to every limitation referenced by applicant and cites much more than those portions of the reference with regard to limitations where those portions are cited. It is therefore impossible to determine whether applicant has a reasonable position or any reasonable rationale for its position because none is offered in its remarks. Applicant does not point out the novelty that it believes the claims present in view of the prior art. Examiner's position is that the detailed rationale for the rejection demonstrates that the reference discloses the claimed features. Arguments directed only to the amended language is also addressed below by way of a reconciled detailed rejection. The argument is not persuasive.
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 1-6, 9-14, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1-6 are directed to a machine or apparatus, claims 9-14 are directed to a process, and claim 17 is directed to a manufacture. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“storing consent information … if the consent information has been acquired, the consent information indicating consent of a user regarding linkage between…an electronic commerce (EC) website and … a store website; and acquiring … linkage target information that is to be subjected to information linkage…; and storing … the acquired linkage target information, wherein: a provision process configured to provide the linkage target information … is carried out if the consent information is stored …, and the provision process is not carried out if the consent information is not stored…”. Claim 9.
With recited additional elements reserved for consideration alone and all together combined with their recited role(s) in the claim under step 2A prong two, a careful analysis of the remaining limitations above results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the groupings of abstract ideas described as mental processes such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation or evaluation), certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in the present claims are a storage unit, a first server, and a second server. These additional elements have been considered individually, in combination, and altogether as a whole together with the functions they perform, e.g., the storage unit and servers as recited do not perform any particular acts or functions. They each merely contain information, consent information and/or linkage target information, wherein said linkage target information on one server is stored in the storage unit and provided to the other server depending on whether consent information is stored in the storage unit. Claims 1-6 further include recitation of a processor that is at least affirmatively recited as performing all steps, and claim 17 includes a storage medium with a program causing a computer to perform all steps, but these are merely generic elements broadly and generally recited as performing all steps in terms of intended results of functionally nonspecific activities, i.e., they “apply it,” the “it” merely being moving data from one server to another through a storage unit if other data is also present in the storage unit. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim is almost entirely a recitation of abstract ideas. The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract intended results of the steps without indicating any particular functional acts performed by any device or structural element to perform the steps or otherwise obtain the intended results. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the claim are only props supporting instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims invoke computers merely as tools to perform an abstract process. Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The elements are recited at a high level of generality, merely implement abstract ideas using generic computers, and fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, it is reiterated that the remaining dependent claims (claim 2-6 and 10-14) do not contribute any additional elements other than those already discussed and do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that describe additional manipulations of data used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17, are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abu Hamam (Paper No. 20250806; Patent No. US 10,902,400 B2).
Abu Hamam teaches all the limitations of claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17. Abu Hamam for example discloses linkage of target information between servers with user consent. Abu Hamam also discloses, pertaining to
Claim 1. An information processing apparatus configured to carry out an ID linkage service and comprising at least one processor the at least one processor configured to carry out:
● a storage process configured to store consent information in a storage unit if the consent information has been acquired, the consent information indicating consent of a user regarding linkage between a first server which provides an electronic commerce (EC) website and a second server which provides a store website (see at least Abu Hamam abstract “Capabilities include transmission of inventory … information from the dispensing devices, verification that legal and commercial requirements for the desired transaction are met, providing information to tax authorities, and providing information … on which to base stocking decisions, and to owners of brands available in dispensing devices from which targeted promotional materials can be selected, and delivered to a user while a transaction is in progress,” figs.1-5, c2:18-37 “subject to prior approval of a user, providing system managers and owners of brands available for delivery by the dispensing devices to receive information through the hub as to past item and/or brand selection 30 patterns of particular users from dispensing devices or other sources,” c3:37-45 “obtaining a positive identification of the user by the dispensing device; transmitting the identification information to the hub server; correlating the identification data with data in a database … and transmitting permission for the transaction to the dispensing device if there is a match,” c3:63-67 “server capability for brand owners,” c8:50-63 “Processing unit 20 further includes a processor-controller 25 including necessary data storage,” c11:5-13 “user will be requested to give consent to have his details in the external database accessed by the vendor. Such consent may be obtained in advance at the time of user's registration. In some embodiments, absent proper consent, the transaction is aborted,” c13:50-58 “hub server, it performs a preliminary check to be sure that the user has opted in for receiving promotional material (block 126). The opt-in can be invited at the time the user first registers for access to the system and stored with the user's other identifying data at the hub”. Please note: The claim language "in a case where" does not result in any further limitation because it merely represents a contingency that is not required. If the condition does not exist, then the claim language that follows is irrelevant. Applicant is reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2111.04 "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure."; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381,77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.").); and
● an acquisition process configured to acquire, from one of the first server or the second server, linkage target information that is to be subjected to information linkage between the first server and the second server (see at least Abu Hamam abstract “selection requests are received … from input units at the dispensing devices,” fig.6, c2:18-37 “accessing a data source to obtain positive identification of a potential user and his or her age and/or compliance with other legal requirements applicable to a requested transaction; subject to prior approval of a user, … receive information through the hub as to past item and/or brand selection patterns of particular users,” c5:48-64 “accessing a data source to obtain positive identification of a potential user and his or her age and or compliance with other legal requirements, for example, to assure that he or she is legally permitted to receive a desired item, for example, a tobacco product or alcoholic beverage, … subject to prior approval of a user, allowing system managers and brand owners to receive information through the hub as to past item and/or brand selection patterns of particular users,” c8:64-c9:12 “processing unit 20 is connected for two-way communication to user smart devices 16 via hub 30, which includes a plurality of remote system servers and third party servers in the World Wide Web or Cloud,” c12:13-31 “inputting (block 110) the user's unique biometric identifier, such as a fingerprint, through the central hub to the dispensing device (block 108)” (the dispensing device acquires the information from the central hub, a server)); and
● a storing process configured to store, in the storage unit, the linkage target information acquired by the acquisition process (see at least Abu Hamam figs.2-4, c8:50-63 “Processing unit 20 further includes a processor-controller 25 including necessary data storage, memory, and microprocessor units running customized system operating software 26. Processing unit 20 also includes a plurality of sensors 27, for example, one or more of item inventory counters for each of the available items, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a magnetic sensor, a weight sensor, a detector, a receiver, a gyroscope, a 3D touch sensor, and a visual scanner for user biometric identification, etc.,” c9:40-50 “consumers' personal details. These details can be saved in hub 30 and used again for later transactions,” c10:15-20, 54-60 “Database 38 may be one maintained by a public or private entity so long as the age data has been verified from a reliable primary source,” “legal conditions can include the location and/or hour of the purchase. Data as to such conditions may be stored in a database,” c11:5-13 “user enters his or her name and/or cellular phone number and/or personal identification number and/or delivery address and/or credit card details and/or finger print and/or any other biometric data and so forth, the user will be requested to give consent to have his details in the external database accessed by the vendor,” c11:26-40 “user's fingerprint, or other biometric identifier is input to the server, as via the user's smart device, and stored in the hub server,” c13:50-58 “The opt-in can be invited at the time the user first registers for access to the system and stored with the user's other identifying data at the hub,” c15:50-56 “If the user's age eligibility is been established, the transaction proceeds to a determination if any other legal requirements exist and are satisfied (block 166). Information as to such requirements may be stored in a database”),
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
● if the consent information is stored in the storage unit, carry out a provision process configured to provide the linkage target information stored in the storage unit to the other of the first server and the second server (see at least Abu Hamam fig. 5, c2:18-37 “subject to prior approval of a user, providing … to receive information through the hub as to past item and/or brand selection patterns of particular users,” c13:40-50 “after user identification and product selection data are transmitted from dispensing devices 32 to the hub server running functionalities software 36, the information is immediately transmitted to a server associated with the applicable brand owner,” c13:59-62 “If the check at block 126 … is positive, the identifying data is transmitted to a server associated with the brand owner for the selected product (block 130)”), and
● not carry out the provision process if the consent information is not stored in the storage unit (see at least Abu Hamam c11:5-13 “user will be requested to give consent to have his details in the external database accessed by the vendor. … absent proper consent, the transaction is aborted,” c13:59-62 “If the check at block 126 is negative, the targeted advertising process is terminated (block 128).” Please note: This limitation does not further limit the claim because it recites that the process that the processor is configured to perform does not occur.).
Claim 2. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
● in the acquisition process, the at least one processor is further configured to acquire first authentication information used by the first server to authenticate the user and second authentication information used by the second server to authenticate the user (see at least Abu Hamam figs. 2-4b, 6, c11:26-40 “authentication of the user/purchaser, according to embodiments of the invention, is shown, schematically, in FIGS. 4a and 4b. … when authentication of an attribute of the user/buyer is required, solely using an app (software application) running in the user's smart device, or, as previously noted, through conventional internet access. In order to utilize the advance order option, at the time of registration, the user's fingerprint, or other biometric identifier is input to the server, as via the user's smart device, and stored in the hub server 38 (see FIG. 2).” Please note: the information as described is used by either and/or both servers for authentication, although the process flows in the figures do not explicitly include the servers the process is implemented by them.), and
● in the storage process, the at least one processor is further configured to store the first authentication information, the second authentication information, and the linkage target information in the storage unit in association with each other (see at least Abu Hamam figs. 2-4b, 6, c3:35-45 “transmitting the identification information to the hub server; correlating the identification data with data in a database … and transmitting permission for the transaction to the dispensing device if there is a match,” c11:26-40 “authentication of the user/purchaser, according to embodiments of the invention, is shown, schematically, in FIGS. 4a and 4b. … when authentication of an attribute of the user/buyer is required, solely using an app (software application) running in the user's smart device, or, as previously noted, through conventional internet access. In order to utilize the advance order option, at the time of registration, the user's fingerprint, or other biometric identifier is input to the server, as via the user's smart device, and stored in the hub server 38 (see FIG. 2)”).Claim 3. The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein:
● in the acquisition process, if the at least one processor acquires a request for provision of the linkage target information from one of the first server and the second server and the consent information is stored in the storage unit, the at least one processor is further configured to carry out, in the provision process, a process configured to provide the linkage target information to the one of the first server and the second server (see at least Abu Hamam fig. 5, c11:26-40 “authentication of the user/purchaser, according to embodiments of the invention, is shown, schematically, in FIGS. 4a and 4b. … when authentication of an attribute of the user/buyer is required, solely using an app (software application) running in the user's smart device, … at the time of registration, the user's fingerprint, or other biometric identifier is input to the server, as via the user's smart device, and stored in the hub server 38 (see FIG. 2),” c12:6-14 “user/purchaser will be prompted to input his or her fingerprint (or other biometric identifier) via the smart device for confirmation of his or her identity. The server will confirm that the input biological identifier belongs to the verified user/purchaser, and the order will be approved (block 102)”. Please note: The claim language "in a case where" does not result in any further limitation because it merely represents a contingency that is not required. See previous comment concerning optional or conditional limitations.).Claim 4. The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein in the provision process, the at least one processor is further configured to filter the linkage target information with reference to activity information of the user and provide the filtered linkage target information (see at least Abu Hamam abstract “article or service selection requests are received from user's smart devices or from input units at the dispensing devices, …. providing information to tax authorities, and providing information to owners of or those maintaining the system on which to base stocking decisions, and to owners of brands available in dispensing devices from which targeted promotional materials can be selected,” fig.5, c2:18-37 “accessing a data source to obtain positive identification of a potential user and his or her age and/or compliance with other legal requirements applicable to a requested transaction;… providing system managers and owners of brands … to receive information through the hub as to past item and/or brand selection patterns of particular users,” c3:49-55 “information about the user's prior selection of items from delivery devices and by other information likely to be reflective of the user's interests”).
Claim 5. The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein:
● the request includes a request from the first server, and the provided linkage target information includes at least one receivable place at which a product that the user has purchased via a sales website provided by the first server is receivable and which is associated with the second authentication information (see at least Abu Hamam abstract “article or service selection requests are received from user's smart devices or from input units at the dispensing devices, …. providing information to tax authorities, and providing information to owners of or those maintaining the system on which to base stocking decisions, and to owners of brands available in dispensing devices from which targeted promotional materials can be selected,” fig.5, c2:18-37 “accessing a data source to obtain positive identification of a potential user and his or her age and/or compliance with other legal requirements applicable to a requested transaction;… providing system managers and owners of brands … to receive information through the hub as to past item and/or brand selection patterns of particular users,” c3:49-55 “information about the user's prior selection of items from delivery devices and by other information likely to be reflective of the user's interests”).Claim 6. The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein:
● the request includes a request from the first server, and the provided linkage target information includes purchase data of the user at a place at which the user received a product that the user had purchased via a sales website provided by the first server (see at least Abu Hamam c2:38-54 “the central hub is a dedicated website,” c5:15-19, c13:62-67 “brand owner's server accesses all available data concerning the user's transactions involving products of the brand owner, browsing history at the brand owner's web site and any other available information relevant to the user's interests”).
Pertaining to method claims 9-14 and medium storing a program claim 17
Rejection of claims 9-14 is based on the same rationale detailed above with regard to claims 1-6, respectively, and rejection of claim 17 is based on the same rationale detailed above with regard to claim 1. In addition, with regard to method claims 9-14, it should be noted that the claim language "if the consent information has been acquired" does not result in any further limitation because it merely represents a contingency that is not required. If the condition does not exist, then the claim language that follows is irrelevant. This also applies to similar contingent language appearing later in the claim and in the claims that depend from claim 9. Applicant is reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2111.04 "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure."; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381,77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.").).
Abu Hamam also discloses regarding
Claim 17. A non-transitory storage medium storing therein a program (see at least Abu Hamam fig. 1b, c2:1-17, 38-54, c5:1-7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
● HANEBUCHI TOSHIYUKI, JP 2020181275 A: teaches authentication of user using an electronic certificate and a license for permitting provision of user information between a first and second business operator.
● Shibuichi et al., Pub. No.: US 2024/0236085 A1: teaches servers exchanging user biometric information upon consent of user.
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 ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 May 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights