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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 06 October 2025.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 were amended.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japanese on 12 December 2022. It is noted, the applicant has filed a certified copy of the JP2022-197683 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
However, the English language translation of a non-English language foreign application must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate.
According to 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g):
(3) An English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is not required except:
(i) When the application is involved in an interference (see § 41.202 of this chapter) or derivation (see part 42 of this chapter) proceeding;
(ii) When necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner; or
(iii) When specifically required by the examiner.
(4) If an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, it must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate.
As in accordance to 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(iii), the English translation of a non-English language foreign application is required when specifically required by the examiner. Examiner is requiring the filing of the certified English translation due to pertinent art filed between the U.S. filing date (21 December 2023) and the foreign Japanese filing date (12 December 2022).
Claim Objections
Claims 1; 8; and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 30 of claim 1; line 27 of claim 8; and line 26 of claim 9 recite, “the substitute transaction,” which appears to be a typographical error of “the substitute transaction object.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-7; 8; and 9 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.
Claims 1; 8; and 9 recite the limitation "the second webpage" in lines 30 and 32 of claim 1; lines 27 and 29 of claim 8; and lines 26 and 28 of claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the second webpage is referring to the “substitute web page” recited in the claims or if it is another web page separate from the substitute web page. For examination purposes the examine will examine the limitation to recite “the substitute web page.” Claims 2-7 inherit the deficiencies noted for claim 1.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC § 101
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 8 recites:
receiving a request transmitted from of a user, the request being transmitted in response to an operation by the user on predetermined transaction object reference information carried by an information carrying medium other than a first page for purchase of a predetermined transaction object, the predetermined transaction object reference information indicating a reference to the first page;
in response to the request being received, acquiring, purchase availability information indicating whether purchase of the predetermined transaction object is available;
transmitting location information indicating a location of the first page in response to the acquired purchase availability information indicating that the purchase of the predetermined transaction object is available;
identifying a substitute transaction object as a substitute for the predetermined transaction object in response to the acquired purchase availability information indicating that the purchase of the predetermined transaction object is not available; and
transmit a substitute page comprising: first information including at least one of a name and an image of the predetermined transaction and the location information; and second information including at least one of a name and an image of the substitute transaction and substitute location information.
Therefore, the claim is directed to “identifying a substitute product to purchase based off of availability data,” which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity “Identifying a substitute product to purchase based off of availability data” is considered to be is method of organizing human activity because it is a marketing or sales activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 8 recites the following additional element(s): a terminal device; a first web page; a substitute web page, wherein the location information is configured to cause the terminal device to display the first web page; wherein the first information is configured to be operable to cause the terminal device to display the first web page based on the location information; and wherein the second information is configured to be operable to cause the terminal device to display the substitute web page based on the substitute location information. The additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. because merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements individually and in combination merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Accordingly, claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7; 8; and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desjardins et al. (US 8,121,902 B1) in view Zhou et al. (US 11,507,996 B1).
Claim 1 –
As per claim 1, Desjardins discloses an information processing device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store computer program code; (see “memory 1304” in col. 14, ll. 46-64; Fig. 1 and 13)
at least one processor (see “server(s) 104/110” in col. 3, ll. 37-46; Fig. 1 and 13) configured to access the memory and operate as instructed by the computer program code, the computer program code comprising:
reception code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive means that receives a request transmitted from a terminal device of a user (see “user computing devices 104” in col. 5, ll. 24-41; Fig. 1), the request being transmitted in response to an operation by the user on predetermined transaction object [pop-up box 402] reference information carried by an information carrying medium [image 208] other than a first web page for purchase [item detail page 500] of a predetermined transaction object, the predetermined transaction object reference information indicating a reference to the first web page; (see “catalog page 200” in col. 6, ll. 4-22; “item detail pages” and “user rolls a cursor over the speakers” in col. 6, ll. 40-47; and Fig. 2-5)
acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire, in response to the request being received by the reception code, purchase availability information indicating whether purchase of the predetermined transaction object is available; (see “availability indicator 412” in col. 10, ll. 24-34; and “The merchant website may particularly wish to make such suggestions for alternative items when the illustrated item is out of stock, no longer available, on backorder, or the like.” in col. 10, ll. 61 – col. 11, ll. 8; Fig. 4)
first transmission code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to transmit location information indicating a location of the first web page to the terminal device in response to the acquired purchase availability information indicating that the purchase of the predetermined transaction object is available, wherein the location information is configured to cause the terminal device to display the first web page; (see “associating hyperlinks to web pages associated with the illustrated elements” in col. 2, ll. 54-67; and “pop-up box 402…the item has been associated with a corresponding link to, for example, an item detail page” in col. 10, ll. 6-23; Fig. 4; Examiner notes the alternative items do not need to be displayed in pop-up box 402 if the item is in stock as explained in col. 10, ll. 61 – col. 11, ll. 8 of Desjardins)
identification code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify a substitute transaction object as a substitute for the predetermined transaction object in response to the acquired purchase availability information indicating that the purchase of the predetermined transaction object is not available; (see and “The merchant website may particularly wish to make such suggestions for alternative items when the illustrated item is out of stock, no longer available, on backorder, or the like.” in col. 10, ll. 61 – col. 11, ll. 8; and “link 422 entitled "Suggest an Alternative Item"” in col. 11, ll. 24-35; Fig. 4 and 9) and
second transmission code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to transmit a substitute web page (see “The merchant website may particularly wish to make such suggestions for alternative items when the illustrated item is out of stock, no longer available, on backorder, or the like.” in col. 10, ll. 61 – col. 11, ll. 8; and “pop-up box 402 " and “links 418 and 420” in Fig. 4) comprising:
first information including at least one of a name and an image of the predetermined transaction and the location information, wherein the first information is configured to be operable to cause the terminal device to display the first web page based on the location information; (see “the item has been associated with a corresponding link to, for example, an item detail page, catalog page 200 may pull and display metadata from the item detail page. Here, pop-up box 402 includes an illustration of MP3 player 214, name 246 of the player” in col. 10, ll. 6-23; Fig. 4-5) and
second information including 418, here entitled "See Alternative Items at Different Price Points", comprises a hyperlink to alternative items generated by the merchant website.” in col. 10, ll. 61 - col. 11 ll. 8)
Desjardins does not explicitly disclose:
second transmission code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to transmit a substitute web page comprising:
second information including at least one of a name and an image of the substitute transaction object and substitute location information indicating a location of the substitute web page, wherein the second information is configured to be operable to cause the terminal device to display the substitute web page based on the substitute location information.
Zhou teaches second information including at least one of a name and an image of the substitute transaction object (see col. 12, ll. 58-col. 13, ll. 8; Fig. 7 of Zhou). This configuration of Zhou is applicable to the device of Desjardins as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to suggesting alternative products on an interface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second information of the substitute web page of Desjardins to include a name and image as taught by Zhou. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Desjardins in order to permit a user to search, browse, and make purchases from an electronic catalog (see col. 12, ll. 66-67 of Zhou).
Claim 2 –
Desjardins in view of Zhou teach the information processing device of claim 1 as described above. Desjardins further discloses an information processing device:
wherein the predetermined transaction object reference information carried by the information carrying medium includes poster identification information that identifies a poster who posted the predetermined transaction object reference information, (see “author’s name 222” in col. 6, ll. 59-65; Fig. 2) and
the received request includes the poster identification information included in the predetermined transaction object reference information, (see “At operation 1522, the user that uploaded the image and/or the user that associated the illustrated item with the hyperlink are compensated by, for example, sharing revenue of the sale.” in col. 16, ll. 42-53; Fig. 15)
the information processing device further comprising:
giving code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to perform processing to give a reward to the poster on the basis of the poster identification information included in the received request in response to the substitute transaction object being purchased via the second web page that is displayed by selecting the substitute transaction object reference information carried by the transmitted substitute web page. (see “At operation 1508, the user, other users, or the website may suggest and/or generate items to serve as alternatives to the illustrated item.” in col. 16, ll. 31-41; “At operation 1522, the user that uploaded the image and/or the user that associated the illustrated item with the hyperlink are compensated by, for example, sharing revenue of the sale.” in col. 16, ll. 42-53; Fig. 15)
Claim 3 –
Desjardins in view of Zhou teach the information processing device of claim 1 as described above. Desjardins further discloses an information processing device:
wherein the acquired purchase availability information indicates whether the predetermined transaction object is in stock, (see “The merchant website may particularly wish to make such suggestions for alternative items when the illustrated item is out of stock, no longer available, on backorder, or the like.” in col. 10, ll. 61 – col. 11, ll. 8)
wherein in response to the acquired purchase availability information indicating that the predetermined transaction object is in stock, the first transmission code is configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to transmit the location information, (see “pop-up box 402” in col. 10, ll. 6-23; Fig. 4) and
wherein in response to the acquired purchase availability information indicating that the predetermined transaction object is not in stock, the identification code is configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify the substitute transaction object and the second transmission code is configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to transmit the substitute web page. (see “link 422 entitled "Suggest an Alternative Item" in col. 11, ll. 24-35; Fig. 4 and 9)
Claim 5 –
Desjardins in view of Zhou teach the information processing device of claim 1 as described above. Desjardins further discloses an information processing device:
wherein the received request includes transaction object identification information for identifying the predetermined transaction object, (see “operation 1512 presents the hyperlink to the associated page, presents text, and/or presents alternative items responsive to detecting the cursor hovering over the illustrated item” in col. 16, ll. 31-41; Fig. 15) and
wherein the identification code is configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify, as the substitute transaction object, the transaction object related to the predetermined transaction object on the basis of the transaction object identification information included in the received request. (see “operation 1512 presents the hyperlink to the associated page, presents text, and/or presents alternative items responsive to detecting the cursor hovering over the illustrated item” in col. 16, ll. 31-41; Fig. 15)
Claim 7 –
Desjardins in view of Zhou teach the information processing device of claim 1 as described above. Desjardins further discloses an information processing device:
wherein the predetermined transaction object reference information includes an affiliate link regarding the predetermined transaction object. (see “third party seller” in col. 7, ll. 59 – col. 8, ll. 9)
Claim 8 –
Claim 8 is directed to a method. Claim 8 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a device. Claim 8 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim 9 –
Claim 9 is directed to a medium. Claim 9 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a device. Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desjardins et al. (US 8,121,902 B1) in view Zhou et al. (US 11,507,996 B1) and further in view of Mahajan (US 10,922,744 B1).
Claim 4 –
Desjardins in view Zhou teach the information processing device of claim 1 as described above.
Desjardins does not explicitly disclose an information processing device:
wherein the identification code is configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify, as the substitute transaction object, a transaction object that has been confirmed to be available.
Mahajan teaches wherein the identification code is configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify, as the substitute transaction object, a transaction object that has been confirmed to be available (see “Product validation engine 522 can consider whether a marketplace item is in stock” in col. 8, ll. 35-55 of Mahajan). This configuration of Mahajan is applicable to the device of Desjardins as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing products presented by content creators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined device of Desjardins in view of Zhou to include a confirmation of the availability of the substitute transaction object as taught by Mahajan. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the combination of Desjardins in view Zhou in order to advertise items corresponds or has contextual relevance to the respective pages (see col. 1, ll. 6-21 of Mahajan).
Claim 6 –
Desjardins in view Zhou teach the information processing device of claim 1 as described above.
Desjardins does not explicitly disclose the limitation below. However, Mahajan teaches an information processing device:
wherein the received request includes user identification information for identifying the user, (see “User information database 552 can include login information for third party entities, such as marketplace server 507.” in col. 6, ll. 61 – col. 7, ll. 22 of Mahajan) and
wherein the identification code is configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify, as the substitute transaction object, a transaction object that is considered, from past behavior of the user, to be possibly selected by the user on the basis of the user identification information included in the received request. (see “past purchases of a user can be stored in user database 526 and the marketplace matching module can attempt a match with only those past purchases, with the user's permission” in col. 8, ll. 19-34 of Mahajan)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Desjardins in view Zhou is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 October 2025, with respect to Foreign Priority, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted priority documents were filed on 22 January 2024. However, the specification was filed in Japanese. The examiner is requesting an English language translation of the non-English language foreign application with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. Foreign priority will not be acknowledged until an English translation along with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate.
Applicant's arguments filed 06 October 2025, with respect to 35 USC § 101 for claims 1-7; and 9, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The invention as claimed integrates the abstract idea into a practical application as it recites the specific way in which an interface displays information to a user depending on whether an item is in stock and available to purchase. Similar to DDR the claimed invention does not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-7; and 9 have been removed.
Applicant's arguments filed 06 October 2025, with respect to 35 USC § 101 for claim 8, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 8, the applicant argues that the claim is integrated to a practical application.
In response to the argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The invention as claimed does not incorporate any structure, such as a processor, to perform the method steps. Thus, the steps can be performed by a human and takes it out of the realm of computer networks. Examiner suggests to amend claim 8 to recite, “An information processing method, performed by one or more processors, the method comprising:…” in order for the claim to be eligible. Therefore, the Examiner maintains claim 8 is ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 102/103 for claim(s) 1; 8; and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Furthermore, the arguments for claims 2-7 are moot due to their dependence to claim 1.
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 RESHA DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
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.
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628