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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to PCT Patent Application No. JP2020/207781, filed on 12/15/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s communications filed on 3/5/2026 have been considered.
Claims 1, 12, 13 and 15 have been amended.
Claim 18 is newly added.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Indication of Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 1, 12 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office Action. Claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-11, and 14-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The amendments to the claims, as well as Applicant’s Remarks on page 15 have been considered and are persuasive. The amendments have clarified the metes and bounds of the claims in view of 112(a) and 112(b), by clarifying the functions occurring in response to selection of the content display portion displaying the information relating to the second product in the second region of the screen. Accordingly, the previously filed 112(a) and 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 15-22 that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant further argues that claim 1 provides a specific technical solution to a specific technical problem inherent in mobile device interfaces, including integrating the customer’s real-time interests with the store’s sales strategy, within the limited display resources of a mobile device. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology… the word “improvements” in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to technology. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to either a screen, image processing techniques, or screen display process, and is specific only in their use in facilitating the abstract idea of displaying information regarding recommended products. It is further noted that integrating a customer’s real-time interests with a store’s sales strategy is an improvement directed towards the information that is displayed via the interface of the mobile device, rather than representing an improvement to the functioning of the mobile device or the interface. The alleged improvement by Applicant is at best a bare assertion of an improvement sans sufficient detail to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the alleged improvement to the technical field. The specification does not reveal to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Applicant has provided an improvement to the technology of mobile device interfaces, nor does the specification provide technical detail of how identifying/determining a shelf and determining a third product based on a physical height (prime place) (a further cited technical solution) differently than from generic devices capturing shelves via image processing, and displaying information via a screen. For example, the specification describes solutions including providing information to a customer even for a product that is not displayed at a position being easily recognized by the customer, preventing the customer from confusing two types of products, and allowing customers to recognize information relating to a product displayed in a specific location, as well as information of another product, in a state of being distinguished from each other (see at least Specification [0006-0007]), yet the disclosure does not describe how an improvement to the claimed screen or other technology is achieved. Furthermore, the claims amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of displaying recommended product information. Unlike the argued claims in Desjardins, neither the instant claims nor the specification describe a technical improvement and how such an improvement was accomplished. The instant claims do not delineate steps thorough which machine learning technology achieves an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. The specification similarly does not provide an analogous improvement, as would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues on pages 22-23 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims are similar to USPTO’s SME Example 2. This argument has been considered and is not persuasive. It is maintained that the instant claims are not similar to those in SME Example 2 for the reasons set forth previously. The claimed invention of Example 2 claimed a solution necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. However, the instant claims, as discussed above and rejected below, do not represent an improvement to technology, but rather amount to implementing the abstract idea using the claimed technology as a tool, which has been found by the courts as subject matter that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Accordingly, the claims are also not similar to those set forth in DDR Holdings, where the claims included specific links that overrode the conventional way a processor operated and therefore, they were a technological solution for a specifically technological problem.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate said abstract idea into a practical application. The rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1, 12 and 13, as well as Applicant’s Remarks (see Remarks Pages 24-25), have been considered and are persuasive. Independent claims 1,12 and 13 have been indicated as subject matter free of the cited prior art, and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 101 rejection set forth in this Office Action, below. Accordingly, the previously filed rejection of claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-17 under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn. New claim 18 has additionally been indicated as reciting subject matter free of the cited prior art in view of its dependency from independent claim 1.
Indication of Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 1, 12 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office Action. Claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-11, and 14-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of the evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention as a whole, as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art. The allowable features are as follows:
in a case where the selection operation with respect to the product displayed in the first region of the initial screen is accepted, change, as a changed product, the second product displayed in the second region in the initial screen to the product as relating to the product as selected by the customer, and the changed product is displayed at a position being high in order of the display order in the second region; and
in a case where selection of the content display portion displaying the information relating to the second product in the second region of the screen is accepted, perform a screen display process comprising:
(i) determining the second product corresponding to the accepted selection based on the display information;
(ii) determining a display shelf on which the second product is displayed;
(iii) determining a product, which is displayed at the specific location of the determined display shelf, as a third product to be displayed on the first region of the screen; and
(iv) updating the screen to display a content relating to the third product on a content portion in the first region of the screen at a position being high in order of the display order.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes previously cited Inagawa (US 20210090135 A1), hereinafter Inagawa, previously cited Gonsalves et al. (US 20120191577 A1), hereinafter Gonsalves, newly cited Peterson et al. (US 20160162971 A1), hereinafter Peterson, newly cited Mirza et al. (US 20210125409A1), hereinafter Mirza, and newly cited NPL Reference U (Zhu et al., “Personalized In-store E-Commerce with the PromoPad: an Augmented Reality Shopping Assistant”, see PTO-892 “Notice of Reference Cited).
Inagawa teaches a commodity information notification system that manages commodity information of sales commodities in retail stores or supermarkets (see at least Inagawa [abstract][0024-0026]). Inagawa discloses transmitting product information to a terminal of a customer present in a store, and causing the terminal to display the information on a screen ([0083-0084][0093]). Inagawa further discloses the screen including a first region, and a second region demarcated from the first region, the first region and the second region respectively including a plurality of content display portions each of which displays the information relating to the product ([Figs. 8-9][0087][0112]), and the screen including an initial screen which is initially displayed before accepting an operation of the customer, and the initial screen including the first region and the second region ([Fig. 9][0123-0124]). Inagawa further discloses wherein the product is displayed in the first region of the initial screen and is predetermined and is a specific product displayed in a specific location inside the store, the specific product to be stored in the at least one memory ([Fig. 6][0027-0029][0079-0081][0088-0094]), the specific location being a prime place region of the display shelf which is a position of a height on a line of sight of the customer and in a display shelf ([0075][0079-0081]). Inagawa further discloses wherein a second product displayed in the second region of the initial screen is predetermined and is either related to a type of the specific product displayed in the first region or is specified by the store or the trader ([Fig. 8-9][0087][0112]). Inagawa further discloses display information for the initial screen includes, in association with each other, information related to products, including the product and the second product, which are displayed in ones of the plurality of content display portions, and the plurality of content display portions in the first region and the second region at which the information is displayed ([Figs. 8-9][0087][0112]). Inagawa further discloses detecting a presence of the customer in the store by using the terminal of the customer ([0084][0131]), and determining, as a determined product, the product as displayed at the prime place region of the display shelf by processing an image ([0041][0072][0079-0081]). Inagawa further teaches in a case where the presence of the customer in the store is detected, displaying the initial screen according to the display information including the first region in which the determined product is displayed ([Fig. 9][0075-0081][0084][0131]), and accepting a selection operation of the customer of one of the products displayed in the first region and the second region of the screen ([0123]). Inagawa further discloses in a case where selection of the content display portion displaying the information relating to the second product in the second region of the screen is accepted, perform a screen display process comprising: (i) determining the second product corresponding to the accepted selection based on the display information ([Fig. 9][0109-0112][0115][0123]). Yet Inagawa does not explicitly teach the first and second region including a disposition of the plurality of content display portions in the first region and the second region and a display order of each of the plurality of content display portions being predetermined, the product being specified as targeted for sales promotion by the store or a trader, display information including the display order indicating a position of at least one of the ones of the plurality of content display portions in the first and the second region, an image capturing the display shelf inside the store, in a case where the selection operation where the selection operation with respect to the product displayed in the first region of the initial screen is accepted, change, as a changed product, the second product displayed in the second region in the initial screen to the product as relating to the product as selected by the customer, and the changed product is displayed at a position being high in order of the display order in the second region, and determining a display shelf on which the second product is displayed, determining a product, which is displayed at the specific location of the determined display shelf, as a third product to be displayed on the first region of the screen, and updating the screen to display a content relating to the third product on a content portion in the first region of the screen at a position being high in order of the display order.
Gonsalves teaches a user interface for a retail website providing a menu of selectable options and a product display region (see at least Gonsalves [abstract][Fig. 1A]). Gonsalves further teaches the first region and the second region respectively including a disposition of the plurality of content display portions in the first region and the second region and a display order of each of the plurality of content display portions being predetermined ([Fig. 1A][0031][0039-0042][0060-0062][0121][0128]). Gonsalves further discloses display information including the display order indicating a position of at least one of the ones of the plurality of content display portions ([0031][0040][0128]). Gonsalves further discloses in a case where the selection operation with respect to the product displayed in the first region of the initial screen is accepted, change, as a changed product, the second product displayed in the second region in the initial screen to the product as relating to the product as selected by the customer, and the changed product is displayed at a position being high in order of the display order in the second region ([Fig. 1A][0022][0025-0029][0031][0039-0042][0060-0063]). Gonsalves further discloses in a case where selection of the second product in the second region of the screen is accepted, display, in the first region of the screen, the second product ([Fig. 1A][0025-0029][0040][0054][0130-0133]). Yet Gonsalves does not explicitly teach the limitations regarding transmitting product information to a terminal of a customer being present in a store, the product displayed in the first region of initial screen being a specific product displayed in a specific location inside the store, the specific product being specified as targeted for sales promotion by the store or a trader, the specific location being a prime place region of the display shelf, detecting a presence of the customer in the store, displaying the initial screen according to the display information, and in a case where the selection of the content display portion displaying the information relating to the second product in the second region of the second region of the screen is accepted, perform a screen display process comprising: determining a display shelf on which the second product is displayed, determining a third product at the specific location of the determined display shelf to be displayed on the first region of the screen, and updating the screen to display a content relating to the third product.
Peterson teaches a system for visually indicating a product location, including a product matching module that compares an identified product in an image to a user-specified product, and scanning items around the user to pinpoint items that the user is interested in ([abstract][0040-0041]). Peterson further discloses a user interface for visually indicating product location ([Fig. 3A][0103-0106]), where matching products and alternative products are displayed via real-time video image of a store shelf ([Fig. 3B][0106-0110]). The user interface comprises a first region and a second region, each region representing a shelf in a store, and further displays multiple products on the shelves in each region, where images of the store shelf are captured by an image sensor of the customer’s electronic device ([Figs. 3A-3B][0042-0047]). Yet Peterson does not explicitly teach the limitations regarding display information including the display order indicating a position of the plurality of content display portions in the first and second region, determining a third product displayed at the specific location of the determined display shelf as a third product to be displayed on the first region of the screen, and updating the screen to display a content relating to the third product.
Mirza teaches a processor displaying a virtual layout of a virtual store emulating a physical layout of a physical store (see at least Mirza [abstract]). Mirza further discloses virtual emulation of a shopping session via a graphical user interface comprising multiple regions, where a virtual layout is configured to emulate the physical layout of a physical store, including the arrangement of physical racks within the store ([0094-0095][Figs. 9A-9D]). Mirza further discloses that virtual items within the virtual rack are configured to emulate the physical items stored on the physical rack, where virtual items are displayed within zones emulating zones of the physical rack ([0100]). When a customer removes an item from a physical shelf/rack, a weight sensor senses the removal and sends information to the virtual store tool indicating that the item has been selected from the physical shelf/rack in order to update the virtual store ([0104]). Yet Mirza does not explicitly teach the limitations regarding a terminal of a customer being present in a store, accepting a selection operation of the customer of one of the products displayed in the first region and the second region of the screen, accepting a selection operation with respect to the product displayed in the first region of the initial screen, changing the second product displayed in the second region in the initial screen, and accepting selection of the content display portion displaying the information relating to the second product.
NPL Reference U (Zhu et al., “Personalized In-store E-Commerce with the PromoPad: an Augmented Reality Shopping Assistant”) discloses an in-store e-commerce system that provides shopping assistance and personalized advertising through the use of dynamic contextualization and a “PromoPad” to provide for dynamic modification of contextual settings of products on store shelves (see at least NPL Reference U [Page 1] “Abstract”). The PromoPad is a tablet PC with a camera mounted on the back, and additionally serves as a mediated device that provides in-store virtual experience with 3-D product visualization ([Page 2, Paragraph 2][Page 4, Paragraph 3]). Virtual augmentations appear on the tablet PC display with the camera point of view, providing users a more realistic view as if it was seen from the user’s point of view ([Page 8, Paragraph 2 – Page 10, Paragraph 2] “3.2.2 Zooming”). NPL Reference U further discloses augmenting context by hiding non-complementary products or competing brands, and replacing surrounding competition with suggested complementary products ([Page 14, Paragraph 3 – Page 14, Paragraph 4]). Yet NPL Reference U does not explicitly teach the limitations regarding the screen including a first region and a second region demarcated from the first region, disposition of the plurality of content display portions in the first region and the second region and a display order of each of the plurality of content display portions being predetermined, display information indicating a position of the content display portions, accepting a selection operation of the customer of one of the products displayed in the first region and the second region, and determining a third product to be displayed on the first region of the screen and updating the screen to display a content relating to the third product on a content portion in the first region of the screen at a position being high in order of the display order.
While these references arguably teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, these references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). Accordingly, claims 1, 12, and 13, taken as a whole, is indicated to be allowable over the cited prior art. The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free from prior art. Claims 2-4, 8, 10-11, and 14-18 depend from claims 1, 12, and 13, respectively, and are therefore indicated as containing subject matter free from prior art.
Additionally, the Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and herby asserts the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed. That is, the Examiner emphasized the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims have subject matter free of prior art as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
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 1-4, 7-8, and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-11 and 14-18 are directed towards a machine. Claim 12 is directed towards a process. Claim 13 is directed towards a manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-8 and 10-18 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES, regarding claims 1-4, 7-8 and 10-18).
Under Step 2A of the MPEP, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. See MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
Taking Claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
transmit information relating to a product to a customer being present in a store, and display the information on a display, wherein
the display includes a first region and a second region, demarcated from the first region, the first region and the second region respectively including a plurality of content display portions each of which displays the information relating to the product, respectively, and disposition of the plurality of content display portions in the first region and the second region and a display order of each of the plurality of content display portions being predetermined, the display including an initial display, and the initial display including the first region and the second region,
the product is displayed in the first region of the initial display and is predetermined and is a specific product displayed in a specific location inside the store, the specific product being specified as targeted for sales promotion by the store or a trader and to be stored, the specific location being a prime place region of the display shelf which is a position of a height on a line of sight of the customer and in a display shelf,
a second product displayed in the second region of the initial display is predetermined and is either related to a type of the specific product displayed in the first region or is specified by the store or the trader,
display information for the initial display includes, in association with each other, information relating to products, including the product and the second product, which are displayed in ones of the plurality of content display portions and the display order indicating a position of at least one of the ones of the plurality of content display portions in the first region and the second region at which the information is displayed,
detect a presence of the customer in the store;
determine, as a determined product, the product as displayed at the prime place region specific location;
in a case where the presence of the customer in the store is detected, display the initial display according to the display information, the initial display includes the first region in which the determined product is displayed;
accept a selection operation of the customer of one of the products displayed in the first region and the second region of the display;
in a case where the selection operation with respect to the product displayed in the first region of the initial display is accepted, change, as a changed product, the second product displayed in the second region in the initial display to the product as relating to the product as selected by the customer, and the changed product is displayed at a position being high in order of the display order in the second region; and
in a case where selection of the content display portion displaying the information relating to the second product in the second region of the initial display is accepted, perform a display process comprising:
(i) determining the second product corresponding to the accepted selection based on the display information;
(ii) determining a display shelf on which the second product is displayed;
(iii) determining a product, which is displayed at the specific location of the determined display shelf, as a third product to be displayed on the first region of the display; and
(iv) display a content relating to the third product on a content portion in the first region of the display at a position being high in order of the display order.
Claim 12 recites the same abstract limitations as recited in claim 1, and additionally recites an information processing method.
Claim 13 recites the same abstract limitations as recited in claim 1.
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The MPEP defines the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping as including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because transmitting information relating to a product to a customer being present in a store, displaying the information on a display including a first region and a second region respectively including a plurality of content display portions each of which displays the information relating to the product, respectively, and disposition of the plurality of content portions in the regions and a display order of content display portions being predetermined, the product displayed in the first region is predetermined and is a specific product displayed in a specific location inside the store, the specific product being specified as targeted for sales promotion by the store or a trader and to be stored, the specific location being a prime place region of the display shelf which is a position of a height on a line of sight of the customer and in a display shelf, a second product displayed in the second region of the initial display is predetermined and is either related to a type of the specific product displayed in the first region or is specified by the store or the trader, display information includes information relating to products, detect a presence of the customer in the store, determine the product as displayed at the prime place region specific location, display the initial display according to the display information, accept a selection operation of the customer of one of the products displayed in the first region and the second region of the display, in a case where the selection operation with respect to the product displayed is accepted, change, as a changed product, the second product displayed in the second region in the initial display as relating to the product, the changed product being high in order of the display order in the second region, and in a case where selected of the content display portion displaying the information relating to the second product is accepted, perform a display process comprising determining the second product corresponding to the accepted selected, determining a display shelf on which the second product is displayed, determine a product displayed at the specific location of the determined display shelf as a third product to be displayed on the first region of the display, and display a content relating to the third product on a content portion in the first region in the display at a position being high in order of the display order is a commercial or legal interaction because it is an advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Claims 12 and 13 recite the same abstract limitations.
Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 12 and 13 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In this case, representative claim 22 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
An information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
transmit information relating to a product to a terminal of a customer being present in a store, and cause the terminal to display the information on a screen, wherein
the screen includes a first region and a second region, demarcated from the first region, the first region and the second region respectively including a plurality of content display portions each of which displays the information relating to the product, respectively, and disposition of the plurality of content display portions in the first region and the second region and a display order of each of the plurality of content display portions being predetermined, the screen including an initial screen which is initially displayed before accepting an operation of the customer, and the initial screen including the first region and the second region,
the product is displayed in the first region of the initial screen and is predetermined and is a specific product displayed in a specific location inside the store, the specific product being specified as targeted for sales promotion by the store or a trader and to be stored in the at least one memory, the specific location being a prime place region of the display shelf which is a position of a height on a line of sight of the customer and in a display shelf,
a second product displayed in the second region of the initial screen is predetermined and is either related to a type of the specific product displayed in the first region or is specified by the store or the trader,
display information for the initial screen includes, in association with each other, information relating to products, including the product and the second product, which are displayed in ones of the plurality of content display portions and the display order indicating a position of at least one of the ones of the plurality of content display portions in the first region and the second region at which the information is displayed, wherein
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
detect a presence of the customer in the store by using the terminal of the customer;
determine, as a determined product, the product as displayed at the prime place region specific location by processing an image capturing the display shelf inside the store;
in a case where the presence of the customer in the store is detected, display the initial screen according to the display information, the initial screen includes the first region in which the determined product is displayed;
accept a selection operation of the customer of one of the products displayed in the first region and the second region of the screen;
in a case where the selection operation with respect to the product displayed in the first region of the initial screen is accepted, change, as a changed product, the second product displayed in the second region in the initial screen to the product as relating to the product as selected by the customer, and the changed product is displayed at a position being high in order of the display order in the second region; and
in a case where selection of the content display portion displaying the information relating to the second product in the second region of the screen is accepted, perform a screen display process comprising:
(i) determining the second product corresponding to the accepted selection based on the display information;
(ii) determining a display shelf on which the second product is displayed;
(iii) determining a product, which is displayed at the specific location of the determined display shelf, as a third product to be displayed on the first region of the screen; and
(iv) updating the screen to display a content relating to the third product on a content portion in the first region of the screen at a position being high in order of the display order.
These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 12 and 13 specifying that the abstract idea is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 12 and 13 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 12 and 13 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 12 and 13 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Next, under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Returning to representative claims 1, 12 and 13, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 12 and 132 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-11, and 14-18, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. As for dependent claims 2-4, 8, 10-11, and 15-18, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 12 and 13, and do not recite any additional elements other than what is disclosed in independent claims 1, 12 and 13. Therefore, claims 2-4, 8, 10-11, and 15-18 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 7 and 14, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 12 and 13. Additionally, they recite the following additional limitations:
wherein the second displayed in the second region is changeable by an external server; and
the display information for the initial screen includes… a product selected based on a browsing history of the customer.
The additional elements of an external server and a browsing history are all recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-4, 7-8 and 10-18 are ineligible.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY R DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5850. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-5p.
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.
/ZACHARY RYAN DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights