DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-19 are currently pending. The effective filing date of the present application is 4/11/2023.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 14-19 are processes (methods), and claims 1-13 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 14 (similarly claims 1 and 8) recites the following bolded abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
14. A method for a server that manages a price-cut amount specified by a sticking object on a commodity and is capable of communicating with an information terminal operated by a consumer visiting a store that sells the commodity, the method comprising:
detecting that the price-cut amount specified by the sticking object fluctuated according to elapse of time(evaluation); and
distributing, to the information terminal, communication of which with the server is established, information indicating that the price-cut amount specified by the sticking object fluctuated (opinion).
Claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15) is directed to a series of steps for manages a price-cut amount specified by a sticking object on a commodity process, which is a commercial/legal interaction (sales activity) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or a mental process (see above notations). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because server, information terminal, detector, distributing component, communication controller, and informing component are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the server, information terminal, detector, distributing component, communication controller, and informing component amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 14 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-19 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The dependent claims include further additional elements not previously addressed such as reading component, recognition component, determining component, commodity master database, and sticker master database. However, all of these additional elements when evaluate separately or in order combination amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-19 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2022050205-A to Okubo (“Okubo”).
7. With regards to claims 1 (similarly claims 8 and 14), Okubo disclosed the limitations of,
a server configured to manage a price-cut amount specified by a sticking object on a commodity (See pg. 4 discussing privilege code stored in a database and that privilege codes can be discounts; pg. 3 discussing the label attached to the item; and pg. 6 discussing the database as part of the management device. Examiner is interpreting the management device as the server, per pg. 2.) ; and
an information terminal operated by a consumer visiting a store that sells the commodity (See pg. 2 discussing the mobile terminal.), wherein
the server includes:
a detector configured to detect that the price-cut amount specified by the sticking object fluctuated according to elapse of time (See pg. 2 discussing in-store camera in communication with the management device, and pg. 6 discussing the enacting of the predetermined rule based on privilege, and pg. 8 discussing the camera photographing the label.) ; and
a distributing component configured to distribute, to the information terminal, communication of which with the server is established, information indicating that the price-cut amount specified by the sticking object fluctuated (See pg. 2 discussing in-store camera in communication with the management device and pg. 6 discussing the enacting of the predetermined rule based on privilege.), and
the information terminal includes:
a communication controller configured to establish communication with the server until checkout of a commodity purchased in the store by the consumer visiting the store ends (See pg. 2 discussing mobile terminal in communication with the management device.); and
an informing component configured to inform, based on the information received from the server, that the price-cut amount specified by the sticking object fluctuated (See pg. 6 discussing the enacting of the predetermined rule based on privilege and the discussing of the mobile terminal displaying the new price.).
8. With regards to claims 2, Okubo disclosed the limitations of,
the information terminal further includes a reading component configured to read the sticking object stuck to the commodity (See pg. 3 discussing the camera of the mobile terminal reading barcodes and the label being a barcode. See also pg. 5 discussing the imaging process with the mobile terminal for the privilege.), and
the informing component informs, based on the information received from the server, that the price-cut amount specified by the sticking object read by the reading component fluctuated (See pg. 6 discussing the enacting of the predetermined rule based on privilege and the discussing of the mobile terminal displaying the new price.).
9. With regards to claims 3 (similarly claims 9 and 15), Okubo disclosed the limitations of,
the information terminal further includes a reading component configured to read the sticking object stuck to the commodity (See pg. 3 discussing the camera of the mobile terminal reading barcodes and the label being a barcode. See also pg. 5 discussing the imaging process with the mobile terminal for the privilege.),
the server further includes:
a recognizing component configured to recognize, for each the information terminal, the communication of which is established, the sticking object read by the reading component of the information terminal (See pg. 5-6 discussing the management device receiving the label information and comparing it to a database to enact the privilege.); and
a determining component configured to determine, as a transmission destination, the information terminal that read the sticking object, the fluctuation of the price-cut amount specified by the sticking object being detected by the detector (See pg. 5-6 discussing the management device receiving the label information and comparing it to a database to enact the privilege.), and
the distributing component distributes the information to the information terminal determined as the transmission destination by the determining component(See pg. 2 discussing mobile terminal in communication with the management device and that the management device includes a communication unit.).
10. With regards to claims 4 (similarly claims 10 and 16), Okubo disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the informing component is further configured to inform, based on the information received from the server, that the price-cut amount specified by the sticking object increased (See pg. 10 discussing the discounting increasing with the passage of time by the privilege.).
11. With regards to claims 5 (similarly claims 11 and 17), Okubo disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the informing component is further configured to inform, based on the information received from the server, that the price-cut amount specified by the sticking object decreased (See pg. 6 discussing the adding of additional discounts or not.).
12. With regards to claims 6 (similarly claims 12 and 18), Okubo disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the server further includes a commodity master database comprising an aggregate of commodity master data generated for each commodity (See pg. 5 discussing database (14) storing the product code, price, and name.) .
13. With regards to claims 7 (similarly claims 13 and 19), Okubo disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the server further includes a sticker master database comprising an aggregate of sticker master data generated for each of types of price-cut stickers on price-cut target commodities (See pg. 4 discussing database (15) storing the privilege code information.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at (571)270-3324. 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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov