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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 were rejected in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 06/17/2025. Applicant’s amended claimset, entered on 08/25/2025, amended Claims 1 and 5, canceled Claims 2-4, and added new Claims 6-10. Herein this Final Office Action, Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to JP-2023-021454, filed on 02/15/2023, and entered on 03/11/2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/25/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claims 1 and 5-10, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On Pages 8-10, Applicant highlights aspects of amended Claim 1 related to the displayed format. Applicant argues that the amended claim recites patent eligible subject matter because “amended claim 1 recites additional elements that provide improvements in the technique of the graphical user interface of a system that displays information on the stores.” Specifically, This arrangement of displaying the information on the stores [(i.e. emphasizing a certain store with larger image and text and vertical positioning)] allows users who are interested in such information to easily access the information they seek. As such, amended claim 1 improves the graphical user interface of the system and thus integrates the alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application.” (Emphasis added). Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.05(a) states “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.”
MPEP 2106.05(a)II states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Examiner responds that although the arrangement may provide advantages to customers by providing a better advertisement, such advantages are an improvement in business operations (i.e. improvement in the abstract idea itself), not an improvement in technology (e.g. graphic user interface). Applicant’s disclosure fails to provide a technical explanation that shows an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology. Instead, the claims merely applies a better abstract idea using generic computer components in their ordinary capacity per MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the amended claims fail to recite a patent eligible improvement under MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, the rejection remains.
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/25/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 for Claims 1 and 5-10, have been fully considered and are moot in light of the additionally cited art of US-20120179564-A1 (“Soroca”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Independent Claim 1 recites “. . . the information on the stores including i) texts representing a name of each store, ii) texts introducing each store, iii) an introduction image of each store, and iv) a banner image of a coupon that is available at each store; . . . the banner image for the second store is displayed larger than the banner image for the first store, and the banner image for the second store includes a mark image that is not included in the banner image for the first store.” at the fifth paragraph and the last two paragraphs. Applicant’s specification makes no mention of a “banner” image, which is a term known in the art. Specification ¶¶58-63 does disclose a “coupon image,” which has a different scope than the claimed “banner image.” Specification ¶59 states “In this case, the normal coupon image is displayed in a normal form without adding the mark image MK indicating that the social contribution level is high. On the other hand, the special coupon image is displayed in an emphasized form with the mark image MK added. In this example, the mark image MK is added to the coupon image C1 of the store X1 and displayed, while the mark image MK is not added to the coupon images C2 to C4 of the stores X2 to X4.” Additionally, Fig. 5 shows the coupon image that would not be construed by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be a “banner image.” Thus, the specification discloses the functions of the claimed “banner image” being performed by the disclosed “coupon image.” Therefore, the amended claim introduces new matter and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding Claim 5, Independent Claim 5 recites “. . . the information on the stores including i) texts representing a name of each store, ii) texts introducing each store, iii) an introduction image of each store, and iv) a banner image of a coupon that is available at each store; . . . the banner image for the second store is displayed larger than the banner image for the first store, and
the banner image for the second store includes a mark image that is not included in the banner image for the first store.” at the sixth to last and the last two paragraphs. Applicant’s specification makes no mention of a “banner” image, which is a term known in the art. Specification ¶¶58-63 does disclose a “coupon image,” which has a different scope than the claimed “banner image.” Specification ¶59 states “In this case, the normal coupon image is displayed in a normal form without adding the mark image MK indicating that the social contribution level is high. On the other hand, the special coupon image is displayed in an emphasized form with the mark image MK added. In this example, the mark image MK is added to the coupon image C1 of the store X1 and displayed, while the mark image MK is not added to the coupon images C2 to C4 of the stores X2 to X4.” Additionally, Fig. 5 shows the coupon image that would not be construed by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be a “banner image.” Thus, the specification discloses the functions of the claimed “banner image” being performed by the disclosed “coupon image.” Therefore, the amended claim introduces new matter and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding Claims 6-10, dependent Claims 6-10 are rejected via dependency on Claim 1, which is rejected above.
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 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 and 6-10 recite a device (i.e. a machine or manufacture) and Claim 5 recites a method (i.e. a process). Therefore, Claims 1 and 5-10 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
“. . . display information on a plurality of stores respectively operated by businesses,
each of the businesses belonging to either a first business group or a second business group, a first business in the first business group having a level of social contribution that is lower than a predetermined standard, and a second business in the second business group having a level of social contribution that is equal to or greater than the predetermined standard,
each of the stores belonging to either a first store group or a second store group, a first store in the first store group being operated by the first business, and a second store in the second store group being operated by the second business, and
the information on the stores including i) texts representing a name of each store, ii) texts introducing each store, iii) an introduction image of each store, and iv) a banner image of a coupon that is available at each store; and
. . .
receive information on the level of social contribution of each of the businesses,
determine whether each of the businesses belongs to the first business group or the second business group based on the received information on the level of social contribution,
display the information on the first store . . . in a first format, and
display the information on the second store . . . in a second format that emphasizes the information on the second store over the information on the first store displayed in the first format,
wherein the information on the second store is positioned above the information on the first store . . . ,
the texts representing the name of the second store are displayed larger than the texts representing the name of the first store,
the texts introducing the second store are displayed larger than the texts introducing the first store,
the introduction image of the second store is displayed larger than the introduction image of the first store,
the banner image for the second store is displayed larger than the banner image for the first store, and
the banner image for the second store includes a mark image that is not included in the banner image for the first store.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) displaying information of stores operated by businesses and (2) grouping stores based on the social contribution level of each business, and (3) displaying information about the stores in a certain format that emphasizes a certain store including size and location of images and text, all of which are commercial or legal interactions (i.e. displaying business information in a certain format based on the type of business and a determined social contribution score is at least “advertising,” “marketing or sales activities or behaviors,” and “business relations”) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (the specifics of the format to display the business information is at least “social activities,” “teaching,” or “following rules or instructions.”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., the “information equipment,” “display,” and “control device”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “commercial or legal interactions” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.C (“The Federal Circuit concluded that "[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea," observing that the district court "pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention." 896 F.3d at 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d at 1559.”). Therefore, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) “information equipment,”
(ii) “display,” and
(iii) “control device.”
The additional elements of (i) “information equipment” (Fig. 3 and ¶26 shows “Terminal 3 may be a notebook Personal Computer (PC).”), (ii) “display” (Fig. 3 and ¶30 shows “The display 35 is a mobile display such as organic Electro Luminescence (EL) or liquid crystal.”), and (iii) “control device” (Fig. 3 and ¶27 shows “Processor 31 is, for example, a microprocessor such as a CPU or MPU.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 3 shows elements in combination.), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The (i) “information equipment,” (ii) “display,” and (iii) “control device,” when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 3 shows elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 3 shows elements in combination), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) “information equipment,” (ii) “display,” and (iii) “control device,” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 3 shows elements in combination), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 5 recites elements and limitations that are substantially similar to Claim 1. Claim 5 recite a method embodied by the elements and limitations of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 just as Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
Dependent Claims 6-10 recite the abstract idea of:
. . . , wherein the level of social contribution of each of the businesses is represented by a value calculated based on numerical indicators of outcomes of social contribution activities of each of the businesses. (Claim 6).
. . . , wherein the value is a weighted sum of the numerical indicators, each of the numerical indicators being multiplied by a corresponding weight. (Claim 7).
. . . , wherein the numerical indicators include at least one of the amount of C02 reduction, the amount of donations to welfare facilities and disaster areas, or the number of times of participation in volunteer activities. (Claim 8).
. . . , wherein the determination of whether each of the businesses belongs to the first business group or the second business group is made by determining whether the value representing the level of social contribution of each of the businesses is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, determining that a business having the value that is smaller than the predetermined value belongs to the first business group, and determining that a business having the value that is equal to or greater than the predetermined value belongs to the second business group. (Claim 9).
. . . receive an input specifying search conditions to search for restaurants from a user, acquire the plurality of stores that satisfy the search conditions, acquire a predetermined number of top-ranked stores from among the plurality of stores based on the level of social contribution, and display the information on the top-ranked stores . . . in the second format. (Claim 10).
Dependent Claims 6-10, have been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claims 6-10 fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations include (1) representing social contribution by a number calculated with a weighted sum of certain values, (2) grouping businesses by applying a threshold value to the calculated social contribution value, and (3) searching for a restaurant and displaying the results. The elements of Claims 6-10 (i.e. “information equipment” and “display” of Claim 1) fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the elements merely recite generic computer components, used as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use (i.e. computer environment) just as in Claim 1. The organization of the further limitations of Claims 6-10 fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 1. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 1 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claims 6-10, individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 6-10 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claims 6-10 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 6-10 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220284050-A1 (“Gadd”) in view of US-20090171722-A1 (“Roberts”) and US-20120179564-A1 (“Soroca”).
Regarding Claim 1, Gadd teaches “Information equipment” (Fig.1-2 and ¶46 shows “mobile device [110/200].”), comprising:
“a display configured to display information on a plurality of stores respectively operated by businesses” (Fig. 2 and ¶83 shows “graphical user interface 260” (i.e. display). Fig. 8 and ¶130 shows “At block 820, the method 800 involves displaying one or more coupon codes in the GUI of the mobile device 260.” ¶24 shows “The coupon code and/or one or more survey questions may be associated with a merchant [(i.e. a store operated by a business)].” See also ¶28 and ¶¶64-65 further discussing the merchant and Fig. 5A-5B and ¶¶120-21 showing example displays of coupon.),
. . .
“the information on the stores including i) texts representing a name of each store, ii) texts introducing each store, iii) an introduction image of each store, and iv) a banner image of a coupon that is available at each store” (¶120 shows “FIGS. 5A and 5B show example user interfaces 500, 550 of a mobile device in which one or more coupon codes are sourced based on input provided by a user. . . Metadata associated with Nike® and Nikon® is displayed . . .” Fig. 5A-5B, ¶¶63-64, ¶93, and ¶¶120-21 shows that the displayed information includes the claimed limitation. Specifically, ¶97 shows “. . . the GUI element may be a new GUI element that is displayed in a banner directly above the user interface of the keyboard . . .” Fig. 5B teaches the “banner image” as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
72
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.) Fig. 5B teaches the “introduction image” as follows
PNG
media_image2.png
1
2
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Fig. 5B teaches the text representing the name of each store and introducing each store as follows “
PNG
media_image2.png
1
2
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.); and
“a processor configured to” (Fig. 2 and ¶83 shows “processor 270” that causes performances of the functionality of “mobile device 200,” which includes “graphical user interface 260.”)
“receive information on the level of social contribution of each of the businesses” (¶140 shows “The GUI elements associated with each record/merchant may be ordered according to one or more rules. For example, the order in which the GUI elements are displayed may be determined by an entity associated with the keyboard interceptor 240. In one case, the order of the GUI elements may correspond to a sustainability score associated with the respective merchants/brands. For example, brands determined to be more sustainable may be displayed first so that a user sees these brands first. This may make it more likely that the user selects the GUI element associated with these brands.” Therefore, the “sustainability score” (i.e. social contribution”) of each business must be received.),
. . .
“display the information on the first store on the display in a first format” (Fig. 5A-5B and ¶121 shows “Data relating to the two coupon codes is displayed above the keyboard within two further selectable GUI elements 560 a, 560 b.” ¶140 shows “The GUI elements associated with each record/merchant may be ordered according to one or more rules. For example, the order in which the GUI elements are displayed may be determined by an entity associated with the keyboard interceptor 240. In one case, the order of the GUI elements may correspond to a sustainability score associated with the respective merchants/brands. For example, brands determined to be more sustainable may be displayed first so that a user sees these brands first. This may make it more likely that the user selects the GUI element associated with these brands.” The brands not selected to be displayed first teaches the “first format.”), and
“display the information on the second store on the display in a second format that emphasizes the information on the second store over the information on the first store displayed in the first format” (Fig. 5A-5B and ¶121 shows “Data relating to the two coupon codes is displayed above the keyboard within two further selectable GUI elements 560 a, 560 b.” ¶140 shows “The GUI elements associated with each record/merchant may be ordered according to one or more rules. For example, the order in which the GUI elements are displayed may be determined by an entity associated with the keyboard interceptor 240. In one case, the order of the GUI elements may correspond to a sustainability score associated with the respective merchants/brands. For example, brands determined to be more sustainable may be displayed first [(i.e. a second format that emphasizes the information on the second store over the information on the first store displayed in the first format)] so that a user sees these brands first. This may make it more likely that the user selects the GUI element associated with these brands.”), . . .
Gadd does not explicitly teach but Roberts teaches:
“each of the businesses belonging to either a first business group or a second business group, a first business in the first business group having a level of social contribution that is lower than a predetermined standard, and a second business in the second business group having a level of social contribution that is equal to or greater than the predetermined standard, each of the stores belonging to either a first store group or a second store group, a first store in the first store group being operated by the first business, and a second store in the second store group being operated by the second business” (Fig. 1 and ¶76 shows that a “greenstar algorithm 152” analyzes company/firm data to output a “raw score 154,” which becomes a “percentage score 156,” which becomes a “simplified green rating 165” (i.e. social contribution level) of zero stars, one star, two star, or three star, such that a “full rating” is given to those “in the top 20%.” ¶224 shows that although the exemplary embodiment uses a “green rating system,” any “’socially conscious’ rating” could be applied. ¶76 further shows “The number of indicia in the preferred embodiment is zero to three but it is understood that the number of indicia used may vary between zero and any number.” Therefore, Roberts teaches an embodiment of two indicia, i.e. zero star rating (i.e. first group) and single star rating (i.e. second group), where each business/store either receives a single star or no star rating. ¶76 and ¶95 shows a predetermined standard of a percentage score. Specifically, ¶95 shows scores “below 40%” receive no stars, and therefore scores equal to or greater than “40%” receive stars.),
“determine whether each of the businesses belongs to the first business group or the second business group based on the received information on the level of social contribution” (¶98 shows “Ratings lookup 514 will translate the company's rating from a numerical rating to a simplified ratings indicia such as a star rating.” Fig. 1 and ¶76 shows that a “greenstar algorithm 152” analyzes company/firm data (determine whether each business belongs to first or second group) to output a “raw score 154,” which becomes a “percentage score 156,” which becomes a “simplified green rating 165” (i.e. social contribution level) of zero stars, one star, two star, or three star, such that a “full rating” is given to those “in the top 20%.” ¶224 shows that although the exemplary embodiment uses a “green rating system,” any “’socially conscious’ rating” could be applied.),
. . .
“the banner image for the second store includes a mark image that is not included in the banner image for the first store” (Fig. 3, ¶¶30-31, and ¶89 shows that the star rating can be presented on any advertising. Fig. 8 and ¶55 shows an example display showing a first providers name next to a three star rating and a second providers name next to a one star rating. ¶76 further shows “The number of indicia in the preferred embodiment is zero to three but it is understood that the number of indicia used may vary between zero and any number.” Therefore, Roberts teaches an embodiment of two indicia, i.e. zero star rating (i.e. first group) and single star rating (i.e. second group), where each business/store either receives a single star or no star rating. Therefore, in an embodiment with only two indicia, Fig. 8 and ¶55 teaches the banner image of the second store including “a mark image” (i.e. stars) that is not included in the banner image for the first store.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Roberts with Gadd because Roberts teaches that advertising “green-ness” or other socially conscious attributes, can improve marketing by better informing and incentivizing customers (¶¶16-18 and ¶224). Thus, combining Roberts with Gadd furthers the interest taught in Roberts, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Gadd and Roberts does not explicitly teach but Soroca teaches:
“wherein the information on the second store is positioned above the information on the first store on the display” (¶154 shows “Ordering and displaying search results may be based upon” a variety of factors including the search algorithm and business rules.” ¶154 further shows “In addition to ordering, content may be emphasized or deemphasized by weighting within the display 172. For example, weighting may occur through the use of size, motion, lack of symmetry, use of garish colors, sounds, multimedia, or other means of accenting content.” ¶167 shows “The query results 222 may be ordered 230 prior to display 232 based, for example, upon the sponsor 224, mobile subscriber characteristics, information relating to the mobile communication facility, location, carrier rules, filter results, and/or walled garden 262 priorities.” Fig. 24-25 shows emphasizing sponsored advertisement by positioning above. Therefore, Soroca teaches that emphasized advertisement is displayed above de-emphasized advertisement.),
“the texts representing the name of the second store are displayed larger than the texts representing the name of the first store” (¶154 further shows “In addition to ordering, content may be emphasized or deemphasized by weighting within the display 172. For example, weighting may occur through the use of size, motion, lack of symmetry, use of garish colors, sounds, multimedia, or other means of accenting content.” (Emphasis added). ¶163 shows “The carrier business rules 130 may prioritize advertising content (see walled garden content 132 below) . . .” Therefore, Soroca teaches that the emphasized advertisement is displayed larger than the deemphasized advertisement.),
“the texts introducing the second store are displayed larger than the texts introducing the first store” (¶154 further shows “In addition to ordering, content may be emphasized or deemphasized by weighting within the display 172. For example, weighting may occur through the use of size, motion, lack of symmetry, use of garish colors, sounds, multimedia, or other means of accenting content.” (Emphasis added). ¶163 shows “The carrier business rules 130 may prioritize advertising content (see walled garden content 132 below) . . .” Therefore, Soroca teaches that the emphasized advertisement is displayed larger than the deemphasized advertisement.),
“the introduction image of the second store is displayed larger than the introduction image of the first store” (¶154 further shows “In addition to ordering, content may be emphasized or deemphasized by weighting within the display 172. For example, weighting may occur through the use of size, motion, lack of symmetry, use of garish colors, sounds, multimedia, or other means of accenting content.” (Emphasis added). ¶163 shows “The carrier business rules 130 may prioritize advertising content (see walled garden content 132 below) . . .” Therefore, Soroca teaches that the emphasized advertisement is displayed larger than the deemphasized advertisement.),
“the banner image for the second store is displayed larger than the banner image for the first store” (¶154 further shows “In addition to ordering, content may be emphasized or deemphasized by weighting within the display 172. For example, weighting may occur through the use of size, motion, lack of symmetry, use of garish colors, sounds, multimedia, or other means of accenting content.” (Emphasis added). ¶163 shows “The carrier business rules 130 may prioritize advertising content (see walled garden content 132 below) . . .” Therefore, Soroca teaches that the emphasized advertisement is displayed larger than the deemphasized advertisement.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Soroca with Gadd and Roberts because Soroca teaches that weighting certain content improves advertising monetization. (¶¶6-8). Thus, combining Soroca with Gadd and Roberts furthers the interest taught in Soroca, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 5, Gadd teaches “A method for displaying information on a plurality of stores respectively operated by businesses” (Fig. 8-9 and ¶¶42-43 shows method of displaying coupons for a plurality of businesses and stores.), the method comprising:
“receiving information on level of social contribution of each of the businesses” (¶140 shows “The GUI elements associated with each record/merchant may be ordered according to one or more rules. For example, the order in which the GUI elements are displayed may be determined by an entity associated with the keyboard interceptor 240. In one case, the order of the GUI elements may correspond to a sustainability score associated with the respective merchants/brands. For example, brands determined to be more sustainable may be displayed first so that a user sees these brands first. This may make it more likely that the user selects the GUI element associated with these brands.” Therefore, the “sustainability score” (i.e. social contribution”) of each business must be received.)
. . .
“displaying the information on the first store on the display in a first format” (Fig. 5A-5B and ¶121 shows “Data relating to the two coupon codes is displayed above the keyboard within two further selectable GUI elements 560 a, 560 b.” ¶140 shows “The GUI elements associated with each record/merchant may be ordered according to one or more rules. For example, the order in which the GUI elements are displayed may be determined by an entity associated with the keyboard interceptor 240. In one case, the order of the GUI elements may correspond to a sustainability score associated with the respective merchants/brands. For example, brands determined to be more sustainable may be displayed first so that a user sees these brands first. This may make it more likely that the user selects the GUI element associated with these brands.” The brands not selected to be displayed first teaches the “first format.”); and
“displaying the information on the second store format that emphasizes the information on the second store over the information on the first store displayed in the first format” (Fig. 5A-5B and ¶121 shows “Data relating to the two coupon codes is displayed above the keyboard within two further selectable GUI elements 560 a, 560 b.” ¶140 shows “The GUI elements associated with each record/merchant may be ordered according to one or more rules. For example, the order in which the GUI elements are displayed may be determined by an entity associated with the keyboard interceptor 240. In one case, the order of the GUI elements may correspond to a sustainability score associated with the respective merchants/brands. For example, brands determined to be more sustainable may be displayed first [(i.e. a second format that emphasizes the information on the second store over the information on the first store displayed in the first format)] so that a user sees these brands first. This may make it more likely that the user selects the GUI element associated with these brands.”), . . . ,
“the information on the stores including i) texts representing a name of each store, ii) texts introducing each store, iii) an introduction image of each store, and iv) a banner image of a coupon that is available at each store” (¶120 shows “FIGS. 5A and 5B show example user interfaces 500, 550 of a mobile device in which one or more coupon codes are sourced based on input provided by a user. . . Metadata associated with Nike® and Nikon® is displayed . . .” Fig. 5A-5B, ¶¶63-64, ¶93, and ¶¶120-21 shows that the displayed information includes the claimed limitation. Specifically, ¶97 shows “. . . the GUI element may be a new GUI element that is displayed in a banner directly above the user interface of the keyboard . . .” Fig. 5B teaches the “banner image” as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
72
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.) Fig. 5B teaches the “introduction image” as follows
PNG
media_image2.png
1
2
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Fig. 5B teaches the text representing the name of each store and introducing each store as follows “
PNG
media_image2.png
1
2
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.); . . .
Gadd does not explicitly teach but Roberts teaches:
“each of the businesses belonging to either a first business group or a second business group, a first business in the first business group having a level of social contribution that is lower than a predetermined standard, and a second business in the second business group having a level of social contribution that is equal to or greater than the predetermined standard, and each of the stores belonging to a first store group and a second store group, a first store in the first store group being operated by the first business, and a second store in the second store group being operated by the second business” (Fig. 1 and ¶76 shows that a “greenstar algorithm 152” analyzes company/firm data to output a “raw score 154,” which becomes a “percentage score 156,” which becomes a “simplified green rating 165” (i.e. social contribution level) of zero stars, one star, two star, or three star, such that a “full rating” is given to those “in the top 20%.” ¶224 shows that although the exemplary embodiment uses a “green rating system,” any “’socially conscious’ rating” could be applied. ¶76 further shows “The number of indicia in the preferred embodiment is zero to three but it is understood that the number of indicia used may vary between zero and any number.” Therefore, Roberts teaches an embodiment of two indicia, i.e. zero star rating (i.e. first group) and single star rating (i.e. second group), where each business/store either receives a single star or no star rating. ¶76 and ¶95 shows a predetermined standard of a percentage score. Specifically, ¶95 shows scores “below 40%” receive no stars, and therefore scores equal to or greater than “40%” receive stars.),
“determining whether each of the businesses belongs to the first business group or the second business group based on the received information on the level of social contribution” (¶98 shows “Ratings lookup 514 will translate the company's rating from a numerical rating to a simplified ratings indicia such as a star rating.” Fig. 1 and ¶76 shows that a “greenstar algorithm 152” analyzes company/firm data (determine whether each business belongs to first or second group) to output a “raw score 154,” which becomes a “percentage score 156,” which becomes a “simplified green rating 165” (i.e. social contribution level) of zero stars, one star, two star, or three star, such that a “full rating” is given to those “in the top 20%.” ¶224 shows that although the exemplary embodiment uses a “green rating system,” any “’socially conscious’ rating” could be applied.),
. . .
“the banner image for the second store includes a mark image that is not included in the banner image for the first store” (Fig. 3, ¶¶30-31, and ¶89 shows that the star rating can be presented on any advertising. Fig. 8 and ¶55 shows an example display showing a first providers name next to a three star rating and a second providers name next to a one star rating. ¶76 further shows “The number of indicia in the preferred embodiment is zero to three but it is understood that the number of indicia used may vary between zero and any number.” Therefore, Roberts teaches an embodiment of two indicia, i.e. zero star rating (i.e. first group) and single star rating (i.e. second group), where each business/store either receives a single star or no star rating. Therefore, in an embodiment with only two indicia, Fig. 8 and ¶55 teaches the banner image of the second store including “a mark image” (i.e. stars) that is not included in the banner image for the first store.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Roberts with Gadd because Roberts teaches that advertising “green-ness” or other socially conscious attributes, can improve marketing by better informing and incentivizing customers (¶¶16-18 and ¶224). Thus, combining Roberts with Gadd furthers the interest taught in Roberts, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Gadd and Roberts does not explicitly teach but Soroca teaches:
“wherein the information on the second store is positioned above the information on the first store on the display” (¶154 shows “Ordering and displaying search results may be based upon” a variety of factors including the search algorithm and business rules.” ¶154 further shows “In addition to ordering, content may be emphasized or deemphasized by weighting within the display 172. For example, weighting may occur through the use of size, motion, lack of symmetry, use of garish colors, sounds, multimedia, or other means of accenting content.” ¶167 shows “The query results 222 may be ordered 230 prior to display 232 based, for example, upon the sponsor 224, mobile subscriber characteristics, information relating to the mobile communication facility, location, carrier rules, filter results, and/or walled garden 262 priorities.” Fig. 24-25 shows emphasizing sponsored advertisement by positioning above. Therefore, Soroca teaches that emphasized advertisement is displayed above de-emphasized advertisement.),
“the texts representing the name of the second store are displayed larger than the texts representing the name of the first store” (¶154 further shows “In addition to ordering, content may be emphasized or deemphasized by weighting within the display 172. For example, weighting may occur through the use of size, motion, lack of symmetry, use of garish colors, sounds, multimedia, or other means of accenting content.” (Emphasis added). ¶163 shows “The carrier business rules 130 may prioritize advertising content (see walled garden content 132 below) . . .” Therefore, Soroca teaches that the emphasized advertisement is displayed larger than the deemphasized advertisement.),
“the texts introducing the second store are displayed larger than the texts introducing the first store” (¶154 further shows “In addition to ordering, content may be emphasized or deemphasized by weighting within the display 172. For example, weighting may occur through the use of size, motion, lack of symmetry, use of garish colors, sounds, multimedia, or other means of accenting content.” (Emphasis added). ¶163 shows “The carrier business rules 130 may prioritize advertising content (see walled garden content 132 below) . . .” Therefore, Soroca teaches that the emphasized advertisement is displayed larger than the deemphasized advertisement.),
“the introduction image of the second store is displayed larger than the introduction image of the first store” (¶154 further shows “In addition to ordering, content may be emphasized or deemphasized by weighting within the display 172. For example, weighting may occur through the use of size, motion, lack of symmetry, use of garish colors, sounds, multimedia, or other means of accenting content.” (Emphasis added). ¶163 shows “The carrier business rules 130 may prioritize advertising content (see walled garden content 132 below) . . .” Therefore, Soroca teaches that the emphasized advertisement is displayed larger than the deemphasized advertisement.),
“the banner image for the second store is displayed larger than the banner image for the first store” (¶154 further shows “In addition to ordering, content may be emphasized or deemphasized by weighting within the display 172. For example, weighting may occur through the use of size, motion, lack of symmetry, use of garish colors, sounds, multimedia, or other means of accenting content.” (Emphasis added). ¶163 shows “The carrier business rules 130 may prioritize advertising content (see walled garden content 132 below) . . .” Therefore, Soroca teaches that the emphasized advertisement is displayed larger than the deemphasized advertisement.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Soroca with Gadd and Roberts because Soroca teaches that weighting certain content improves advertising monetization. (¶¶6-8). Thus, combining Soroca with Gadd and Roberts furthers the interest taught in Soroca, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 6, Gadd, Roberts, and Soroca teach “The information equipment according to claim 1,” as shown above.
Gadd does not explicitly teach but Roberts further teaches “wherein the level of social contribution of each of the businesses is represented by a value calculated based on numerical indicators of outcomes of social contribution activities of each of the businesses” (Fig. 9 and ¶118 shows a process of computational modules used to calculate the “green rating” (i.e. level of social contribution.). Fig. 15-16, and ¶¶162-73 shows “module 5” and “module 6” calculating the net emissions based on “Scope 1,” “Scope 2,” and “Scope 3” emissions (i.e. numerical indicators of outcomes of social contribution activities of each of the businesses). See also Fig. 13 and ¶151-57 showing calculation of carbon offsets in “Module 3.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Roberts with Gadd because Roberts teaches that advertising “green-ness” or other socially conscious attributes, can improve marketing by better informing and incentivizing customers (¶¶16-18 and ¶224). Thus, combining Roberts with Gadd furthers the interest taught in Roberts, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 7, Gadd, Roberts, and Soroca teach “The information equipment according to claim 6,” as shown above.
Gadd does not explicitly teach but Roberts further teaches “wherein the value is a weighted sum of the numerical indicators, each of the numerical indicators being multiplied by a corresponding weight” (¶6 shows “The net greenhouse gas emission of an entity is often measured in equivalent units of CO2 and referred to as an entity's ‘carbon footprint’.” Fig. 15 and ¶164 shows “Module 5 (Net Emissions) in FIG. 9 is shown as a detailed system module in FIG. 15 and performs the function of calculating the net emissions of a particular entity by adding Scope 1 1501 , Scope 2 1502, the int/int Scope 3 emissions 1503, and other Scope 3 emissions 1504. Optionally, each of Scope 1, Scope 2 or Scope 3 may be multiplied by a modification factor (MF) to take account of any business model differences which disadvantages one particular entity versus the others in its sector. . . The Modification Factors are shown as MF1, MF2, MF3 in FIG. 15. (In the default situation, that is, no known bias from business models, the MF value for each Scope would simply be 1).” Thus, the “Modification Factors” teaches the weights for the weighted sum in calculating the net emissions. Additionally, Fig. 12 and ¶¶135-49 shows that calculating “Scope 3” emissions, i.e. “supply chain emissions,” incl