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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/20/2026 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claim 6 has been cancelled.
Claim 20 is newly added.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 remain pending and stand rejected.
Claim Objections – Minor Informalities
Claim 20 recites “wherein he terminal used” and should recite “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues that the claims are not directed to commercial interactions such as marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or fundamental economic practices. These arguments are similar to arguments previously set forth, and the Examiner again reminds Applicant that Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. The Examiner maintains that the claims clearly set forth or describe an abstract idea, and thus “recite” an abstract idea (Prong One = Yes).
Applicant alleges that the Examiner has failed to demonstrate that the claimed features are “like the kind of “fundamental economic practice” or “commercial or legal interaction” as detailed by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) and (B)”, and seemingly implies that there must be a one-to-one correlation to the exemplary court decisions listed therein. Such implication is erroneous, however. A noted in the MPEP, these are simply examples of the concepts the courts have consistently identified as abstract, and are not limiting. Both the MPEP and the courts have declined to define abstract ideas, other than by example. Both the office and the courts have provided consistent guidance instructing examiners to refer to the body of case law precedent in order to identify abstract ideas by way of comparison to concepts already found to be abstract. This was expressly provided in prior guidance, and has been reiterated in MPEP 2106.04(a):
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
Applicant’s allegations run contrary to the Examination Guidance in the MPEP and contrary to the manner in which the courts have assessed claim eligibility.
The Examiner reiterates that the majority of the limitations of the claimed invention set forth or describe registering a regular delivery of a product and postponing delivery of a regular purchase product. This falls squarely within performing marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Moreover, the limitations could also be taken as a fundamental economic practice because they clearly set forth or describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Notably, each of these falls under the enumerated category of ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’. As required by the MPEP:
Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above.
The rejection set forth previously and maintained below clearly identifies the limitations that recite the abstract idea while expressly setting forth the specific enumerated grouping (e.g., certain methods of human activity).
In accordance with the above, the Examiner maintains the determination under Prong One (i.e., the claims in fact “recite” an abstract idea). Additional elements are then analyzed in Prong Two and further in Step 2B.
Applicant further alleges that the claimed invention addresses a problem arising in the realm of computer functionality or technology or another technical field because claim 1 “regarding multiple technical systems in meaningful communication with a “point-of-sale (POS) system in real-time during a purchase transaction” and “a terminal used by the customer in the store””. Here again, the Examiner disagrees.
Addressing “real-world problems in retail and delivery management systems may be alleviated by preventing duplicate purchases” is not representative of a problem arising in the realm of computer functionality or technology or another technical field. Instead, the improvement is manifested squarely in the commercial process itself. Improving a commercial process is not equivalent to improving the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field, and “preventing duplicate purchases” in the manner claimed does not align with any court’s determination of eligibility.
On page 12, Applicant also argues that the claimed improvement is akin to “enabling a host to receive the same advertising revenue streams as before but without the loss of visitor traffic and potential customer”. Applicant references “USPTO’s official guidance” but provides no citation or indication of what guidance is being referred to. That said, the Examiner recognizes this language from Example 2 of the Abstract Idea Examples (July 2015). Notably, this is example is based on the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com et al., 113 USPQ2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which is also discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a).
Initially, the Examiner notes that the claims at issue bear no semblance to solving a similar problem to that of Example 2 or DDR Holdings. the claims in DDR Holdings attempted to address a problem specific to the routine functionality of a link (i.e. a user is directed away from the current page to the site of another merchant). The claims of DDR Holdings specified how interactions with the computer/Internet were manipulated to create a composite/hybrid page that prevented the user from being directed to the outside merchant, therein overriding the routine function of the link.
The claims of the instant application, however, lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed, at best reciting generic computer operations such as storing data, receiving or transmitting data, and electronic recordkeeping. Moreover, the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, improving the abstract commercial process while failing to provide any restriction on the underlying technical operations of the system. Applicant is reminder that, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning 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 and the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). As discussed above, the specification does not set demonstrate that the invention achieves an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology or technical field (although the claims [arguably] improve the commercial process by preventing duplicate purchases). This fact is underscored by Applicant’s own remarks (p. 13):
For example, if a customer already has a product scheduled for delivery and then either buys or decides to skip such item when having the option to buy at a store, then delivery logistics and involved systems may be improved by possibly not duplicating or adding such purchase - such as by otherwise automatically also proceeding with the scheduled-delivery even though the product has already either just been bought or skipped at the store. And see how, at least as amended, the independent claims each reflect such improvement.
The above comments underscore the abstract nature of the improvement. Even in view of the registration of the postponement, this speaks specifically to the abstract procedure rather than the underlying technical process, and at best represents electronic recordkeeping and/or storing data in memory.
For at least the reasons above, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
II. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s reasoning to combine Saad and Uchida does not support the claimed feature. The Examiner disagrees and reiterates that Saad discloses receive from the terminal an instruction to postpone the delivery schedule (see: Fig. 6 (610), 0118 (from 2 weeks to 6 weeks), 0123 (skip), 0125 (pause), 0126 (modify – e.g., change a prediction consumption cadence of 1 month to 1.5 months), Fig. 7 (710, 712)) and register postponement of the delivery schedule (see: 0125-0126, Fig. 7 (710, 712). That is, pausing scheduled deliver is analogous to postponing. Alternatively, changing from 2 to 6 weeks or 1 month to 1.5 months (i.e., from a shorter to a longer time period) also postpone the scheduled delivery. Notably, “skip” may also be taken as postponement. These modifications are stored similar to the initial scheduled consumptions and are thus “registered”.
As noted in the previous rejection, customer location and where the terminal is used by the customer imparts little to no functional difference as claimed to the features of acquiring information and outputting a suggestion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that in-store shopping was notoriously well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Uchida, then, is relied upon specifically enable a customer to use the customer’s purchasing history while in a store (i.e., the customer located in store). As explained further in 0006 of Uchida (which was cited for motivation) “it may be difficult to find previous product purchase information about a product intended to be purchased at a time for selecting a product in a store”. Thus, one of ordinary skill would recognize that enabling the use of history in store would address these difficulties and improve the customer’s shopping experience.
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 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7-20, under Step 2A claims 1-5 and 7-19 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites
acquire, in real-time during a purchase transaction, product information about a product to be purchased by a customer at a store;
output to the customer in the store a suggestion for regular purchase related to the product about which the product information was acquired;
receive an instruction to regularly purchase the product
related to the suggestion; and
register regular delivery of the product for which the instruction has been received;
determine whether the product in which the product information is acquired is registered in a regular purchase product list for regular delivery to the customer;
in a case where the product is registered in the regular purchase product list,
output a notification indicating that the product is registered for regular delivery and a suggestion for changing a delivery schedule of the product;
receive an instruction to postpone the delivery schedule; and
register postponement of the delivery schedule.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth or describes registering a regular delivery of a product and postponing delivery of a regular purchase product. This represents the performance of sales activities or behaviors, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. Moreover, the limitations could also be taken as a fundamental economic practice because they clearly set forth or describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Notably, each of these falls under the enumerated category of ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including an information processing system comprising at least one memory configured to store instructions, at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, a point-of-sale (POS) system, and a terminal (used by the customer in the store).
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
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 claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
electronic recordkeeping.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, 7-14 and 17-20, dependent claims 2-5, 7-14 and 17-20 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-5, 7-14 and 17-20 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-5, 7-14 and 17-20 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. This is because claims 2-5, 7-14 and 17-20 rely upon at least similar additional elements recited only at a high level of generality. Further additional elements such as a smartphone or terminal provided on a shopping basket (e.g., claims 13-14), product database (e.g., claim 17), controlling a display (e.g., claim 19), and a terminal comprising a display, speaker, touch panel and microphone (claim 20) are also recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). With respect to claim 19 specifically, the Examiner emphasizes that the claims provide no restriction on how the display is controlled, or how output to the display is controlled. Instead, these limitations are set forth only at a high level of generality as instructions to implement the abstract idea on the terminal.
Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-5, 7-14 and 17-20 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-5, 7-14 and 17-20 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 15 (method) and 16 (non-transitory medium), claims 15-16 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 15-16 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad (US 2023/0186330) in view of Uchida (US 2023/0385902) and Robinson (US 8,370,271).
Regarding claim 1, Saad discloses an information processing system comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (see: 0146, 0165, 0170, Fig. 1, Fig. 10, Fig. 12); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (see: 0146, 0165, 0170, Fig. 1, Fig. 10, Fig. 12) to:
acquire product information about a product to be purchased by a customer (see: Fig. 4 (406, 408, 428, 434), 0098-0099),
output, to a terminal used by the customer, a suggestion for regular purchase related to the product about which the product information was acquired (see: 0111-0115, Fig. 5, 0134, Fig. 9);
receive, from the terminal, an instruction to regularly purchase the product
related to the suggestion (see: Fig. 5 (510), 0115 (receiving an interaction with selectable option 510), Fig. 9 (908), 0136 (interaction with a selectable option to activate), see also: Fig. 7 (710), 0122 (interaction with…710), 0126 (interaction corresponding to modify option));
register regular delivery of the product for which the instruction has been received (see: 0035 (acceptance and/or modification of scheduled consumption), 0136 (upon interaction, schedules a consumption), 0126 (modifies the one or more scheduled consumptions)); and,
in a case where the product is registered in the regular purchase product list, output to the terminal a notification indicating that the product is registered for regular delivery and a suggestion for changing a delivery schedule of the product (see: 0117 (determines an updated consumption cadence to present within an indicator based on updates to a target time frame, change in historical user consumption data, and/or subsequent user behavior), 0118 (an updated indicator 610 to display an updated predicted consumption cadence (e.g., from 2 weeks to 6 weeks), 0119 (transmits an electronic communication (e.g., an e-mail, a notification, an SMS message) to indicate the change in consumption cadence), Fig. 6B (610, 312), Fig. 7 (722));
receive from the terminal an instruction to postpone the delivery schedule (see: Fig. 6 (610), 0118 (from 2 weeks to 6 weeks), 0123 (skip), 0125 (pause), 0126 (modify – e.g., change a prediction consumption cadence of 1 month to 1.5 months), Fig. 7 (708, 710, 712)), and,
register postponement of the delivery schedule (see: 0125-0126, Fig. 7 (710, 712); see also: 0035 (acceptance and/or modification of scheduled consumption), 0136 (upon interaction, schedules a consumption)).
Though disclosing the above, Saad does not disclose a point-of-sale system or that a customer is at a store or that the terminal is used in the store. Where the customer is located and where the terminal is used by the customer imparts no functional difference as claimed to the features of acquiring information and outputting a suggesting. Moreover, in-store shopping was notoriously well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
For example, Uchida discloses enabling a customer to use the customer’s purchasing history while in a store (i.e., the customer located in store) and includes using a terminal in the store (see: 0011, 0063, 0067, 0071, 0078). Moreover, terminal (102) in Uchida operates as a point-of-sale (POS) system used by the customer in the store (see: 0064 (terminal operated by a customer in a store), 0113-0115, 0204, 0206, 0223).
Notably, Uchida also expressly discloses acquiring product identification about an intended purchase product, as well as purchase history of an associated product (see: 0070, 0082-0083, 0105, Fig. 3-4, Fig. 6-7, Fig. 9, Fig. 14-15)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Sadd to have utilized the known techniques for in-store interactions as taught by Uchida in order to have enabled to the customers of Sadd to performed shopping activities on their users device in-store such that the customers could have readily used their purchase histories while in-store, thereby allowing customers to easily find previous product purchase information about a product intended to be purchased at a time for selecting a product in a store (see: Uchida: 0006).
Lastly, though disclosing all of the above, Saad does not disclose determine whether the product in which the product information is acquired is registered in a regular purchase product list for regular delivery to the customer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such a determination was implied – if not inherent – in Saad because Saad records and updates consumption cadence for registered products.
To this accord, Robinson discloses a known manner determine whether the product in which the product information is acquired is registered in a regular purchase product list for regular delivery to the customer (see: Fig. 14 (1404), col. 17 lines 26-30 & 34-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Sadd in view of the teachings of Robinson because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized applying the teachings of Robins to the invention of Saad would have enhanced the invention of Saad by enabling customers to select precise delivery slots. This is because enabling customers to specify a particular delivery slot for the delivery of orders generated from the recurring delivery list would have allowed those customers to have precisely managed the delivery schedule, thus avoiding many of the challenges presented by the delivery of perishable goods or other consumables (see: Robinson: col. 2 lines 48-53).
2. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one
processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine whether to suggest regular purchase of the product about which the product information is acquired (see: Saad: 0112, 0117-0119); and
output a suggestion for the regular purchase regarding the product, the regular purchase being determined to be suggested (see: Saad: Fig. 6A-6B, 0118-0119).
3. The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine whether to suggest regular purchase of the product based on a purchase history of the customer (see: Saad: Fig. 2 (208), 0030 (historical user consumption data for a consumable item), Fig. 11, 0119).
4. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
output a suggestion for the regular purchase regarding a product included in a product category in units of product categories, the product category including the product about which the product information is acquired (see: Saad: 0035, 0098-0099, 0115-0116, Fig. 4-5; Uchida: 0086, 0095-0096).
Note: Saad discloses a specific quantity of a type of product. Uchida expressly discloses products belonging to a category.
5. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: register regular delivery, to the customer, of the product for which the instruction has been received (see: Saad: 0031 (consumable item includes delivery service), 0035 (acceptance of consumption cadence), Fig. 5 (every 3 weeks, every 6 weeks, 506)).
12. The information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: select a specific product among products included in the product category and register regular purchase of the selected product see: Saad: 0035, 0098-0099, 0115-0116, Fig. 4-5; Uchida: 0063, 0066, 0086, 0095-0096).
13. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the terminal includes a smartphone, or a terminal provided on a shopping basket or a shopping cart (see: Saad: 0043, 0171; Uchida: 0114, 0127, 0154).
14. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the product information about the product read using a smartphone, or a registration device provided on a shopping basket or a shopping cart (see: Uchida: 0132, 0155).
Regarding claims 15 (method) and 16 (non-transitory medium), claims 15-16 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 15-16 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad in view of Uchida and Robinson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vanska (US 2004/0093274).
Regarding claim 7, Saad in view of Uchida and Robinson teaches all of the above as noted but does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: register reminding the customer of the customer regularly purchasing, at the store, the product for which the instruction has been received.
To this accord, Vanska discloses an in-store shopping service including register reminding the customer of the customer regularly purchasing, at the store, the product for which the instruction has been received (see: 0009, 0052, 0055, Fig. 3 (318, 320)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Sadd in view of Uchida and Robinson to have utilized the known technique for in-store reminders as taught by Vanska in order to have assisted consumers who frequently forget to place needed items on shopping lists and conduct their daily shopping quickly and easily. (see: Zhang: 0002, 0004).
8. The information processing system according to claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output, to the terminal, a suggestion for purchasing, at the store, a product similar to the product for which reminding of regularly purchasing the product at the store is registered (see: Vanska: Fig. 3 (314), 0007, 0045-0046).
9. The information processing system according to claim 7, wherein the at least one
processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output, to the terminal, a notification regarding the product for which reminding of regularly purchasing the product at the store based on a position of the customer in the store (see: Vanska: Fig. 3 (318, 320, 326), 0055, 0057).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad in view of Uchida, Robinson and Vanska as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Morello (US 12,277,590)
Regarding claim 10, Saad in view of Uchida, Robinson and Vanska teaches all of the above including wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output, to the terminal, a suggestion for purchasing, at the store, a product similar to the product for which reminding of regularly purchasing the product at the store (see: Vanska: Fig. 3 (314), 0007, 0045-0046).
The combination, however, does not disclose outputting the suggestion based on a position of the customer in the store. Vanksa does disclose the use of location-based functionality in providing an optimal route (see: 0025 (determining user’s location), 0027, 0034, 0058, 0062).
To this accord, Morello discloses output, to the terminal, a suggestion for purchasing, at the store, a product similar to a first product based on a position of the customer in the store (see: col. 3 lines 34-44, col. 5 lines 26-36, col. 17 lines 12-14 & 24-26, Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Sadd in view of Uchida and Vanska to have utilized the known technique location-based suggestions as taught by Morello in order to have enabled customer to have identified top similar items approximate a current location (see: Morello: col. 6 lines 50-58).
Claim(s) 11 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad in view of Uchida and Robinson as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Watson (US 11,126,955).
Regarding claim 11, Saad in view of Uchida and Robinson teaches all of the above as noted but does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine whether to suggest regular purchase of the product based on cadence consumption of the product about which the product information is acquired (see: Saad: 0002-0003, 0021, 0111-0115, Fig. 5). The combination, however, does not disclose that the determination may be based on a weight.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that weight was a well-known mechanism for gauging consumption, and would have been obvious to have utilized as a measure of ‘cadence consumption’.
For example, Watson discloses a reordering (i.e. regular purchase) service that determines a consumption pattern (i.e., cadence) based on weight, and using the pattern control reordering (see: col. 2 lines 44-50, col. 2 line 64-col. 3 line 4, col. 27 lines 36-46, Fig. 1, Fig. 5 (504)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Sadd in view of Uchida and Robinson to have utilized the known technique for weight-based reordering as taught by Watson in order to have enabled customers to better keep track of ongoing shopping needs while making it easier to organize requests across multiple shoppers (see: Watson: col. 1 lines 31-35).
17. The information processing system according to claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: refer to a product database to acquire the weight of the product about which the product information was acquired (see: Watson: Fig. 3 (314, 124), col. 5 lines 21-32).
18. The information processing system according to claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: estimate the weight of the product based on a product name of the product about which the product information was acquired (see: Watson: Fig. 3 (314, 124), col. 5 lines 21-32; Robinson: Fig. 5 (Sheffield Dairy AA Large Eggs, 12 CT”, “Winston’s 7 Grain Bread, 24 OZ”)).
Note: In view of P. 15 lines 25-p. 16 line 3, estimate the weight of the product based on a product name of the product about which the product information was acquired is understood to indicate that the weight is retrieved from the product name (i.e., it is included within the product name), which is stored in a product database. Watson expressly teaches retrieving weight from a database, while Robinson demonstrates that product records include a name and weight within the name.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saad in view of Uchida and Robinson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taylor (US 2018/0108001).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Saad in view of Uchida and Robinson teaches wherein the terminal used by the customer in the store comprises a display, a speaker, a touch panel (see: Saad: 0179-0180, Fig. 12; Uchida: 0153; Robinson: col. 20 lines 4-8).
The combination, however, does not teach the terminal to include a microphone. Microphones were notoriously well-known components of mobile devices and are well-established in the art. Further, Saad expressly discloses that the I/O devices may include “ other known I/O devices” (see: 0179).
To this accord, Taylor teaches a system including a POS terminal and a mobile device (see: abstract, 0101, 0103), the mobile device comprising a microphone (see: 0037, 0210, 0219).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the known type of input device (microphone) taught by Taylor in the user terminal of Saad since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements (user terminal device, microphone), and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (receiving input), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable -namely, a user device comprising a microphone. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would have understood that including a microphone would have enabled the device of Saad to have received verbal commands as an alternate form of input (see: Taylor: 0219), thereby enhancing functionality for the user.
Subject Matter Allowable over the Prior Art
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Notably, claim 19 remains rejected on other grounds.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20150296250 A1 (Casper) discloses a mobile device comprising a microphone (see: 0059, 0074).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights