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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 8/13/2025. Claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 11 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 11 has been amended. Claims 4-6, 10, and 12 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite claims 4-7 are cancelled, however claim 7 remains pending. The examiner believes this is a typographical error and claims 4-6 are cancelled and claim 7 is pending. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Step 1: The claims 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 are a system, claim 9 is a method, and claim 11 is a computer readable medium. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1, 9 and 11) recite:
receive a user input of first store determination information for determining a first store;
acquire, from a sales data storage that stores data of a plurality of stores, a sales result and a disposal result of the first store;
select a second store by searching for, from the plurality of stores, a store that meets a selection condition based on an attribute of the first store and the selection condition for the second store;
acquire, from the sales data storage, a sales result and a disposal result of the second store;
and display, on a display, a graph having two axes representing a sales result and a disposal result,
and simultaneously display, in the graph, a first position corresponding to the first store and a second position corresponding to the second store by using the sales data.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps acquiring sales data and disposal data and presenting the data in the form of a graphical representation as it related to a plurality of stores. The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under sales activities.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, also recite a mathematical concept as they are directed to the display of a graph having two axes representing a sales result and a disposal result.- MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of
A sales information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: (claim 1)
On a display
Data storage
a computer to execute (claim 9)
A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to (claim 11)
The additional elements of A sales information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: (claim 1); On a display; a computer to execute (claim 9); A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to (claim 11); data storage are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 11 without significantly more.
Claims 2 recites wherein, in the graph, zero point of each axis is an average value of a plurality of stores, and the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to generate evaluation information of the first store by using a quadrant to which the first position belongs in the graph. The claim merely further limits the judicial exception by further limiting the type of data used in the graph and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 3 recites wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: acquire first store determination information for determining the first store; and acquire, from store attribute storage unit that stores an attribute of a store for each of a plurality of stores, an attribute associated with the first store determination information, and select the second store by using the acquired attribute and the store attribute storage unit. The claim merely further limits the judicial exception by further limiting the type of data used in the graph and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 7 recites wherein the sales data indicate sales of a specific product, and the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to acquire product specification information specifying the specific product, and acquire the sales data of a product indicated by the product specification information. The claim merely further limits the judicial exception by further limiting the type of data used in the graph and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 8 recites wherein the sales data indicate sales of a specific period, and the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to acquire period specification information specifying the specific period, and acquire the sales data of a period indicated by the period specification information. The claim merely further limits the judicial exception by further limiting the type of data used in the graph and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For these reasons claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1, 9 and 11 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of prior art, however all claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101, as set forth above.
Taking amended claim 1 as a representative claim, the claims as amended are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 now recites the additional claimed features of:
display, on a display, a graph having two axes representing a sales result and a disposal result, and simultaneously display, in the graph, a first position corresponding to the first store and a second position corresponding to the second store by using the sales data.
The closest prior art was found to be as follows:
Allison (US 2011/0040660) recites [0035] […] At a step 110, the application uses the GUI to receive a user selection of a category of waste product for which the user wishes to enter amounts of waste counted for a variety of products within the selected category of waste product [0048] The GUI 400 may also include a number of drop-down menus. Unlike the data entry fields described above, the drop-down menus allow the administrator to select between a defined number of options. For example, a store drop-down menu 410 allows the administrator to select a store location for which the product definition specified by the other data entry fields is valid. In this way, the administrator can, for example, set different units of measure or different costs for like products at different store locations. [0089] The input data can also include sales data and incoming inventory data. In the case of a restaurant, the sales of each type of food can be captured at the checkout/order taking machine and then reconciled to obtain a gross indication of waste. Additionally, in Figure 13 graphs are shown having two axes waste as a function of time and cost.
Wang (“Managing Your Supply Chain Pantry: Food Waste Mitigation Through Inventory Control”) shows a graph in Figure 1 of the retailer inventory vs. the acquired waste.
Doi (US 20170140395) recites and shows [0040] and Figure 1, “In this example, the first graph G1 is a line graph representing the number of sales at the respective stores, which are the stores A to D, with regard to the designated item “wine”.”
It was found that no reference alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. The feature of claim 1 (and parallel claims 9 and 11) that overcome the prior art are:
display, on a display, a graph having two axes representing a sales result and a disposal result, and simultaneously display, in the graph, a first position corresponding to the first store and a second position corresponding to the second store by using the sales data.
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. It is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that the claims are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
For these reasons dependent claims 2-3, and 7 are also free of prior art as they depend from 1, 9, and 11.
Relevant Art Not Cited
US 20170270585 and inventory system for optimizing reducing waste and increasing sales for a particular retailer
JP2013196207 discloses the determination of an amount of disposed products and the amount of sales data in a given period of time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/13/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks directed to Step 2A, the examiner maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea. First, the examiner asserts the problem set forth in the specification is rooted in the improvement of the business process and not a technical solution, specifically addressed in [004] describing the need for the determination of a sale result and a disposal result as important indicators when operating a store. The solution recited to the problem is addressed by the claimed invention (starting in [0006]) which merely recites the automation of analyzing the sales and disposal result using a computer tool. The mere automation of an abstract idea by a computer tool operating in its ordinary capacity does recite more than a judicial exception or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a) and (f)). The removal of the need for sifting through data manually or performing calculations to create a graph in the manner in which the solution is disclosed, does not rise to the level of a technical solution, but rather mere automation of the process by a computer. The specification states the advantageous effect is that the store clerk can easily recognize quality of a sale and disposal result of the store. The presentation of the graph as disclosed and claimed is a mere presentation on a display of the result and not an improvement to the user interface technology or technical solution itself. This is an improvement to the business process not an improvement to a computer/technology or a technical solution to a technical problem. The features recited in dependent claims 2 and 3 merely recited additional elements at a high level of generality in the same manner described above for the computer and further detail the calculation performed by the computer. The outputs of claims 2 and 3 also merely result in an improvement to a business solution.
With respect to the remarks directed to Step 2B, the examiner asserts that for the same reasons set forth above, the ordered combination does not recite meaningful limitations that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05). Even as an ordered combination, the claims recite at most a mere improvement to a business problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
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 VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (EST).
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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 9/26/2025