DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments filed 9/7/2025. Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are currently pending. The earliest effective filing date of the present application is 01/29/2021.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1, 2, and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
5. Claim 1 (similarly claims 15 and 16) recites the limitation “which requires an authority for browsing, which relates to an article provision device satisfying a first search condition inputted in an administrator terminal during an administrator’s search, and which includes stock information of the article to be provided from the article provision device (emphasis added)” and "which does not require an authority for browsing, which relates to the article provision device satisfying a second search condition inputted in a user terminal during a user's search, and which includes the stock information of the article to be supplied from the article provision device (emphasis added).” As currently written, both limitations are unclear because the sentence structure does not provide for what the second and third “which” are limiting; whether that be, the primary acquiring statement or one of the previous “whiches.” Appropriate clarification is needed.
Claims 15 and 16 recites the limitation “the second article provision device information” in lines 10 and 11, respectfully. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 15, and 16 recites the limitation “an authority for browsing” multiple times making the limitations unclear as to antecedent basis of future authority.
Claim 14 recites “a database in which stock information of the first and article provision device information is recorded is updated (emphasis added).” The lack of clarity of if it is an typographical error or referring to the first and second article provision device information. Appropriate clarification is needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-14 are processes (methods), and claims 15 and 16 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (similarly claims 15 and 16) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
1.An article management method comprises the following steps of:
acquiring first article provision device information, which requires an authority for browsing, which relates to an article provision device satisfying a first search condition inputted in an administrator terminal during an administrator’s search, and which includes stock information of the article to be provided from the article provision device (observation);
presenting, to the administrator terminal, the first article provision device information, in which the stock information in the first article provision device information is shown as detailed information (opinion),
acquiring the second article provision device information, which does not require an authority for browsing, which relates to the article provision device satisfying a second search condition inputted in a user terminal during a user’s search, and which includes the stock information of the article to be supplied from the article provision device (observation), and
presenting, to the user terminal, the second article provision device information in which the stock information of the article provision device is shown as simple information different from the detailed information (opinion).
Claim 1 (similarly claims 15 and 16) is directed to a series of steps collecting, analyzing, and displaying data of an article provision device after a search, which is a commercial/legal interaction and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or a mental process (see above notations). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the article provision device, administrator terminal, user terminal, server, acquisition units, presentation unis, and computer are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See e.g., Specification [0018] discussing the multiple types of generic computing devices that could be used for the administrator terminal. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the article provision device, administrator terminal, user terminal, server, acquisition units, presentation unis, and computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 15, and 16 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-14 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 2 and 4-14 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-2, and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0010434 to Sasajima et al. (“Sasajima”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0377301 to Chila et al. (“Chila”).
10. With regards to claim 1 (similarly claims 15 and 16), Sasajima disclosed the limitations of,
acquiring first article provision device information, , which relates to an article provision device satisfying a first search condition inputted in an administrator terminal during an administrator’s search who manages an article provision device from which an article is provided, and which includes stock information of the article to be provided from the article provision device (See [0012]-[0013] discussing the maintenance terminal receiving operation state data after a search. . See also [0090] and [0254] discussing different users having different access rights.);
presenting, to the administrator terminal, the first article provision device information, in which the stock information in the first article provision device information is shown as detailed information (See Fig. 3 Display operational state data (A6).),
acquiring the second article provision device information, , which relates to the article provision device satisfying a second search condition inputted in a user terminal during a user’s search and which includes the stock information of the article to be supplied from the article provision device(See [0012]-[0013] discussing the maintenance terminal receiving operation state data after a search. See also [0090] and [0254] discussing different users having different access rights.), and
presenting, to the user terminal, the second article provision device information in which the stock information of the article provision device is shown as the simple information different from the detailed information (See Fig. 3 Display operational state data (A12) and [0043]-[0044] discussing displaying only the area data. See also [0090] and [0254] discussing different users having different access rights.).
Sasajima does not explicitly disclose the limitations of
which requires an authority for browsing
which does not require an authority to browse
However, Chila teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the transaction art to include a browsing authority is required and which no browsing authority is required for access to information (See [0090] and [0254]discussing different users having different access rights.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the transaction art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chila to include a browsing authority is required and which no browsing authority is required for access to information, as disclosed by Sasajima. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to limit viewing of data (Chila [0254]).
11. With regards to claim 2, Sasajima disclosed the limitations of,
wherein accuracy of the detailed information is higher than that of the simple information (See Fig. 3 Display operational state data (A12) and [0043]-[0044] discussing displaying only the area data.).
12. With regards to claim 4, Sasajima disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the detailed information or the simple information is presented for each sales area where article provision devices are installed (See Fig. 3 Display operational state data (A12) and [0043]-[0044] discussing displaying only the area data.).
13. With regards to claim 5, Sasajima disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the stock information of the first article provision device information, which can be presented to the administrator terminal as the detailed information, is stock quantity (See [0037] discussing the operation state data and Fig. 3 Display operational state data (A6).), and the stock information of the second article provision device information which can be presented to the user terminal as the simple information, is a stock level (See Fig. 3 Display operational state data (A12), Fig. 7 and [0043]-[0044] discussing area data including number of stock/whole.).
14. With regards to claim 6, Sasajima disclosed the limitations of,
wherein a control is performed so that either a first presentation format for presenting the first article provision device information in a chart format or a second presentation format for presenting a layout format in which the first article provision device information is arranged corresponding to a layout of article provision devices in a sales area, can be selected (See Fig. 3 Display operational state data (A12), Fig. 7 and [0043]-[0044] discussing area data including number of stock/whole. Examiner notes the conditional limitation MPEP §2111.04(II).).
15. With regards to claim 7, Sasajima is silent the limitations of,
wherein the first presentation format or the second presentation format can be selected, depending on the browsing authority assigned to the administrator.
However, Chila teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the transaction art to include the first presentation format or the second presentation format can be selected, depending on the browsing authority assigned to the administrator (See [0090] and [0254] discussing different users having different access rights.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the transaction art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chila to include the first presentation format or the second presentation format can be selected, depending on the browsing authority assigned to the administrator, as disclosed by Sasajima. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to to limit viewing of data (Chila [0254]).
16. With regards to claim 8, Sasajima disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the stock quantity indicates zero or the stock level indicates a low stock or no stock, the stock information is presented in a form different from stock information of the article provided by the other provision devices (See [0037] discussing the code NO and situation of trouble data being empty.).
17. With regards to claim 9, Sasajima disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the first article provision device information includes at least one of sales area information indicating the sales area where the article provision devices are installed and article information relating to the article provided by the article provision device (See Fig. 3 Display operational state data (A12), Fig. 7 and [0043]-[0044] discussing area data.).
18. With regards to claim 10, Sasajima disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the first article information includes at least one of an article name, article price information and article explanation information (See Fig. 3 Display operational state data (A12), Fig. 7 and [0043]-[0044] discussing area data including a vending machine number, an installation place, a supply/replace data, a change, an article name for each slot, the number of stocks/whole, a last selling date, a supply/replace amount, and a total selling quantity.).
19. With regards to claim 11, Sasajima disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the explanation information includes a display image which is attached to or is displayed on the article provision device installed in the sales area (See [0043]-[0044] discussing displaying area data including a vending machine number, an installation place, a supply/replace data, a change, an article name for each slot, the number of stocks/whole, a last selling date, a supply/replace amount, and a total selling quantity.).
20. With regards to claim 12, Sasajima disclosed the limitations of,
wherein sales volume and sales proceeds of the article provision device in a predetermined unit period are totaled up by using the number of times that an article provision device provides the article, and sales information, in which the sales volume and the sales proceeds of the article provision device in the predetermined unit period are arranged in chronological order, are presented in a predetermined display form according to the sales volume and the sales proceeds (See [0042]-[0044] discussing displaying area data including a vending machine number, an installation place, a supply/replace data, a change, an article name for each slot, the number of stocks/whole, a last selling date, a supply/replace amount, and a total selling quantity.) .
21. With regards to claim 13, Sasajima disclosed the limitations of,
wherein, in the sales information, the sales volumes and the sales amounts of the respective article provision devices installed in the same sales area in the predetermined unit period, or the sales volumes and the sales amounts of the respective article provision devices which provide the same article in the predetermined unit period, are arranged so as to be compared with each other information (See Fig. 3 Display operational state data (A12), Fig. 7 and [0042]-[0044] discussing area data including a vending machine number, an installation place, a supply/replace data, a change, an article name for each slot, the number of stocks/whole, a last selling date, a supply/replace amount, and a total selling quantity.).
22. With regards to claim 14, Sasajima disclosed the limitations of,
wherein a database in which stock information of the first and article provision device information is recorded is updated, by using the number of times of provision of the article in the article provision device information (See Fig. 3 Display operational state data (A12), Fig. 7 and [0043]-[0044] discussing area data including a vending machine number, an installation place, a supply/replace data, a change, an article name for each slot, the number of stocks/whole, a last selling date, a supply/replace amount, and a total selling quantity.).
Response to Arguments
23. Applicant's arguments filed 9/7/2025 have been fully considered with respect to §101 but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues under step 2A prong 1 that the claim is a technical improvement and significantly more. Examiner disagrees more to the fact that prong 1 ask “is an abstract idea claimed?” Applicant does not rebut this.
Applicant argues under step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B argues the claims are a technical improvement to the functioning of a computer. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s argument that the claims amount to be “practical application” under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B analysis is not persuasive because an improvement (efficiency) of conventional computer technologies is not a technical solution to a technical problem. Instead the argued improvement represent improvements to the abstract idea of the certain methods of organizing human activity as discussed above. In contrast, the 2019 PEG cite to “a modification of Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid web page” (i.e., the invention of DDR Holdings) to demonstrate an “improvement in the function of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” That is, the improvements achieved by the claimed invention appear to be directed towards improvements to business practices (i.e., to save time and effort of access, e.g., see Remarks [pg. 10-11]) rather than technical/technological improvements to those disclosed in, for example, DDR Holdings and Examples 37-42. In other words, Applicant did not improve the terminals but the access (read/write) of the data. Examiner maintains position.
24. Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chila.
Applicant argues for claims 15 and 16 that Sasjima fails to teach a first and second acquisition unit. Examiner disagrees. The specification [0032] describes both of the units as a single processing control unit (processor); the processor of Sasjima teaches both.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at (571)270-3324. 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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov