DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments / application filed on 18 September 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-9 have been amended.
Claims 5-6, 10 are cancelled.
Claim 3 is original / previously presented.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 5-6 and 10, the Applicant has successfully cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-4, 7-9; the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A because “Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, under the first prong as alleged by the Examiner, in the similar manner as DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com et al., where the Federal Circuit found that the system that generates the composite web page does not recite an abstract idea” (Remarks pg. 8). Examiner disagrees. In DDR Holdings, the court found that the claims were necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. In contrast to DDR Holdings, the Applicant’s claims (1) are not rooted in computer technology and (2) do not overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. First, In Step 2A Prong One, if the computer / technology elements are removed (e.g.. an information terminal, posting-person site, network, store site, processor, first / second screen), the Applicant’s claims still represent certain methods of organizing human activities with the limitations / features of: posting information about a product…, registering the posting person information or product information…, identifying the posting person / product / consumer…, providing sales information of various products…, detecting the product identified by the product identification information from information that is posted…, detecting sales information of a relevant product from the store…, outputting the extracted image of the detected product and the sales information of the relevant product…, displaying first [results] including a product list…, selecting the first product information…, transition to [displaying] second [results] including the image extracted and a store list. Therefore, there is an abstract idea recited outside of the computer / technology elements, which is unlike DDR Holdings. Second, Applicant’s background discusses the problem that customers have difficulty in reaching information of stores that sell the products of interest on the basis of only the information posted by the influencers (Applicant Specification ¶[0002]). This is not a technological problem or a problem rooted in technology. Instead, this is a business / entrepreneurial problem that exists outside of technology (e.g. a hypothetical consumer follows a celebrity in person or on television and wants to purchase a similar outfit the celebrity is wearing or has purchased). Therefore, the claims do not solve a technological problem that only exists in Internet technology or a problem specifically arising with computer networks like the claims in DDR Holdings. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “claim 1 is amended to further specify the manner of presenting the collected information by the information terminal. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites, inter alia: the information terminal displays a first screen including a product list comprising one or more product information sections, a first product information section of which includes the image extracted from the information posted by the posting-person site in association with the posting-person identification information and the product identification information, and upon a selection of the first product information section, the information terminal causes the first screen to transition to a second screen including i) the image extracted from the information posted by the posting-person site and ii) a store list comprising one or more store information sections, a first store information section of which includes the sales information detected from the store site in association with a similarity degree indicating similarity of the extracted image of the detected product with an image of the relevant product. The claimed “first screen” and “second screen” are supported, for example, by the screens SCe and SCf depicted in FIGS. 19 and 20, respectively. The claimed “second screen” includes information from multiple internet sources, that is, the image extracted from the information posted by the posting-person site and the sales information detected from the store site in the similar manner as the composite webpage recited in DDR. In the same manner as DDR, amended claim 1 does not recite a mathematical algorithm nor a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice, and rather recites a business challenge that is particular to the Internet. See also Example 2 of the USPTO's eligibility guidance. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that claims at issue pass the first prong of the first step of Alice/Mayo test” (Remarks pg. 8-9). Examiner disagrees. First, the limitations of “wherein the information terminal displays a first screen including a product list comprising one or more product information sections, a first product information section of which includes the image extracted from the information posted by the posting-person site in association with the posting person identification information and the product identification information, and upon a selection of the first product information section, the information terminal causes the first screen to transition to a second screen including i) the image extracted from the information posted by the posting-person site and ii) a store list comprising one or more store information sections, a first store information section of which includes the sales information detected from the store site in association with a similarity degree indicating similarity of the extracted image of the detected product with an image of the relevant product” is part of the judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One (certain methods of organizing human activities: sales and marketing activities, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) that is merely applied by a generic / general purpose computer (e.g. information terminal, first screen, second screen). This limitation amounts to presenting results of the detecting, identifying (and selecting) steps, using computers as a tool, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept / significantly more. Second, this claim differs from USPTO hypothetical Example 2 which was determined eligible because there was no abstract idea recited in the claim. In contrast to Example 2, the Applicant’s claims recites an abstract idea / judicial exception with the features of posting information about a product…, registering the posting person information or product information…, identifying the posting person / product / consumer…, providing sales information of various products…, detecting the product identified by the product identification information from information that is posted…, detecting sales information of a relevant product from the store…, outputting the extracted image of the detected product and the sales information of the relevant product…, displaying first [results] including a product list…, selecting the first product information…, transition to [displaying] second [results] including the image extracted and a store list. These features are certain methods of organizing human activities. Therefore, there is an abstract idea recited in the claims, and the limitations regarding displaying the first and second screen amount to applying the judicial exception on a generic / general purpose computer which is not a practical application or significantly more. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “the claims include additional limitations sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea” (Remarks pg. 9). Examiner disagrees. The additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (an information terminal, posting-person site, network, store site, processor, first / second screen) generally linked to a field of use (i.e. Internet); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (transmitting data, storing data, receiving / retrieving data, outputting data) with additional generic computers / general computer components (information retrieval server, communications interface, storage device, database). The activities performed by the additional elements are also well-understood, routine, and conventional; as supported by MPEP court decisions and the Applicant’s specification. Regarding the sites, the Applicant’s specification ¶[0027-28] describing the additional element of a posting-person site and store site as web sites, and the specification background ¶[0003] detailing the Internet for obtaining and posting information at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Regarding the activities of connecting / communicating / transmitting these steps are claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Regarding the activities of storing / creating, these steps are steps are claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Regarding the activities of retrieving / receiving / acquiring, these steps are claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering, transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Regarding the activity of extracting, this step is claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering, transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data (Symantec), using a telephone for image transmission (TLI Communications), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction). Viewing these elements as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually. Therefore, the additional elements do not provide significantly more in Step 2B. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “Specifically, these claim features involve a specific manner of displaying the “second screen” including information from multiple internet sources, that is, the image extracted from the information posted by the posting-person site and the sales information detected from the store site. According to such contents and elements of the second screen, it is possible to retain users of the service provided with the information retrieval server, using the second screen as a hub for purchasing the product posted by the posting-person site at the store site. Furthermore, the claimed “second screen” includes “the sales information detected from the store site in association with a similarity degree indicating similarity of the extracted image of the detected product with an image of the relevant product.” By including the “similarity degree,” it is possible to facilitate the user to more selectively visit store sites (e.g., store sites of product having higher similarity) and therefor facilitate the user retention at the service provided with the information retrieval server” (Remarks pg. 9-10). Examiner disagrees. First, there are no technical features claimed regarding how the second screen is displaying the previously obtained image (data obtained through the extra-solution activity of data gathering), and store list (obtained through certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) that would root this limitation or the claims in technical steps such that it is more than just applying a judicial exception on a general purpose computer. Second, the specification does not discuss or suggest the benefit of using the screen as a hub to facilitate user retention at a service provided with the information retrieval server. Also, Applicant Specification ¶[0105], ¶[0109] and Fig 20 suggests the opposite of user retention by providing the URL of the store site where a product specified by a user is sold, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand clicking on an Internet URL would take a user away from the current service and launch the webpage. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “Applicant respectfully submits that such a manner of improvement to computer functionality amounts to ‘significantly more’ than an abstract idea” (Remarks pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. The claims do not improve a computer or computer functionality itself because the that claims are directed to a judicial exception / abstract idea. Instead of being directed to a core computer functionality, the claims are directed to an abstract idea / judicial exception, and the computers / computer elements in the claims are only used as a tool to implement the judicial exception, or supply high-level extra-solution elements that are not significantly more. Nothing in the claims demonstrates an improvement to computers or computer functionality outside of a judicial exception. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 102 / 103 rejection of claims 5-6 and 10, the Applicant has successfully cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-4, 7-9, the arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection (Bogaard in view of Gutman in view of Bower in view of Sicora).
Priority
This application 18/502,587 filed on 6 November 2023 claims priority from Japan patent application JP2023-010546 filed on 26 January 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 17 December 2025 and 6 November 2023 have been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9:
The term “relevant” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant” (e.g. relevant product) is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (the term relevant is not used in the specification), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, relevant will be interpreted as ‘sharing a feature point’ (see Applicant specification ¶[0104] discussing degree of similarity of an image having a feature point similar to that of the product image).
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 1-4, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9:
Step 1:
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 recite a system. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites a posting-person to post information of a product; the registration event including posting-person identification information for identifying the posting-person… designated by the consumer or product identification information for identifying a product designated by the consumer and user identification information for identifying the above consumer; a store to provide sales information of various products; register the posting-person identification information or the product identification information included in the received registration event to the user record that stores the acquired user identification information; detect the product identified by the product identification information stored in the user record… from information that is posted via… the posting-person identified by the posting-person identification information stored in the user record; detect sales information of a relevant product from the store; output the extracted image of the detected product and the sales information of the relevant product to the… consumer identified by the user identification information; displays a first [result] including product list comprising one or more product information sections, a first product information section of which includes the image extracted from the information posted by the posting person… in association with the posting person identification information and the product identification information, and; upon a selection of the first product information section… the first [result] to transition to [displaying] a second [result] including i) the image extracted from the information posted by the posting-person… and ii) a store list comprising one or more store information sections, a first store information section of which includes the sales information detected from the store… in association with a similarity degree indicating similarity of the extracted image of the detected product with an image of the relevant product.
The claim(s) as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities. First, the limitations of a posting-person to post information of a product; the registration event including posting-person identification information for identifying the posting-person… designated by the consumer or product identification information for identifying a product designated by the consumer and user identification information for identifying the above consumer; a store to provide sales information of various products; register the posting-person identification information or the product identification information included in the received registration event to the user record that stores the acquired user identification information; detect the product identified by the product identification information stored in the user record… from information that is posted via… the posting-person identified by the posting-person identification information stored in the user record; detect sales information of a relevant product from the store; output the extracted image of the detected product and the sales information of the relevant product to the… consumer identified by the user identification information; displays a first [result] including a product list comprising one or more product information sections, a first product information section of which includes the image extracted from the information posted by the posting person… in association with the posting person identification information and the product identification information, and; upon a selection of the first product information section… the first [result] to transition to [displaying] a second [result] including i) the image extracted from the information posted by the posting-person… and ii) a store list comprising one or more store information sections, a first store information section of which includes the sales information detected from the store… in association with a similarity degree indicating similarity of the extracted image of the detected product with an image of the relevant product are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of marketing or sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, social activities, and following rules or instructions. For example, marketing or sales activities or behaviors includes posting information about a product…, registering the posting person information or product information…, identifying the posting person / product / consumer…, providing sales information of various products…, detecting the product identified by the product identification information from information that is posted…, detecting sales information of a relevant product from the store…, outputting the extracted image of the detected product and the sales information of the relevant product…, displaying first [results] including a product list…, selecting the first product information…, transition to [displaying] second [results] including the image extracted and a store list…; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes posting information about a product…, registering the posting person information or product information…, identifying the posting person / product / consumer…, providing sales information of various products…, detecting the product identified by the product identification information from information that is posted…, detecting sales information of a relevant product from the store…, outputting the extracted image of the detected product and the sales information of the relevant product…, displaying first [results] including a product list…, selecting the first product information…, transition to [displaying] second [results] including the image extracted and a store list…; social activities includes posting information about a product…; and following rules or instructions includes registering the posting person information or product information…, detecting the product identified by the product identification information from information that is posted…, detecting sales information of a relevant product from the store…, outputting the extracted image of the detected product and the sales information of the relevant product…, displaying first [results] including a product list…, selecting the first product information…, transition to [displaying] second [results] including the image extracted and a store list. The presence of generic / general purpose computer components such as an information terminal, posting-person site, network, store site, processor, first / second screen does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. marketing or sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, social activities, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claim 1 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. posting-person site, network, store site, processor, first / second screen) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform otherwise manual processes. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of sites (e.g. posting-person site, store site) in the limitations does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. Internet), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). See MPEP 2106(I) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (Fed. Cir. 2015) stating ‘An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer’. Hence, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of connecting / communicating / transmitting and its limitations of a posting-person site that is connected to the network; an information terminal connected to a network that transmits a registration event over the network in registration mode and a retrieval event over the network in retrieval mode by a consumer; a store site that is connected to the network; an information retrieval server that is connected to the network; a communication interface that is connected to the network and performs data communication with the posting-person site, the store site via the network and information terminal; are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for the registering / detecting / identifying steps), and amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the network, posting-person site, information terminal, store site, information retrieval server, communication interface (generic computers, general computer components) are only being used as a tool in the connecting / communicating, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding connecting / communicating more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (sending / receiving information). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of storing / creating and its steps of a storage device that includes a user database as an aggregate of user records created for each consumer who uses the information terminal, the user records including the user identification information, the posting-person identification information, and the product identification information; the user record that stores the acquired user identification information; product identification information stored in the user record that stores the acquired user identification information; posting-person identification information stored in the user record that stores the acquired user identification information are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data used for the detecting / identifying steps), and amount to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the storage device, user database, information terminal (general computer components, general purpose computers) are only being used as a tool in the storing, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding storing or creating more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (recording data / information). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of retrieving / receiving / acquiring and its limitations of a retrieval event over the network in retrieval mode by a consumer; when the registration event is received via the communication interface, acquire user identification information from the received registration event; when the retrieval event is received via the communication interface, acquire user identification information from the received retrieval event; are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering / retrieving data for the detecting / identifying steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the information terminal, processor, network, posting-person site, information terminal, communication interface (generic computers, general computer components) are only being used as a tool in the connecting / communicating, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding retrieving, receiving, or acquiring more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (receiving or retrieving information). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of extracting and its steps to extracts an image of the detected product from information posted by the posting-person site via the network are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent displaying results), and amounts to mere data gathering / transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the processor, posting-person site, network (generic computer, general computer component) is only being used as a tool in the extracting, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding extracting more than using computers as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive / to transmit data). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the steps of registering (e.g. register the posting-person identification information or the product identification information included in the received registration event to the user record) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for subsequent detecting), and also amounts to mere data storage / electronic record keeping, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the processor (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the detecting, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding registering more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (recording information). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the steps of detecting (e.g. detect the product identified by the product identification information stored in the user record that stores the acquired user identification information, from information that is posted via the network by the posting-person site of the posting-person identified by the posting-person identification information stored in the user record that stores the acquired user identification information; detect sales information of a relevant product from the store site) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering / retrieving data for subsequent outputting / displayed results), and also amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the processor, network, posting-person site, store site (generic computer, general computer components) are only being used as a tool in the detecting, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding detecting more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (retrieving / obtaining information). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the step of outputting (e.g. output the extracted image of the detected product and the sales information of the relevant product to the information terminal used by the consumer identified by the user identification information) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting / outputting results of the detecting), and also amounts to mere transmitting data / outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the processor, information terminal (generic / general purpose computers) are only being used as a tool in the outputting, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding outputting more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (presenting information / results). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (an information terminal, posting-person site, network, store site, processor, first / second screen) generally linked to a field of use (i.e. Internet); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (transmitting data, storing data, receiving / retrieving data, outputting data) with additional generic computers / general computer components (information retrieval server, communications interface, storage device, database). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an information terminal, posting-person site, network, store site, processor, first / second screen to perform posting information about a product…, registering the posting person information or product information…, identifying the posting person / product / consumer…, providing sales information of various products…, detecting the product identified by the product identification information from information that is posted…, detecting sales information of a relevant product from the store…, outputting the extracted image of the detected product and the sales information of the relevant product…, displaying first [results] including a product list…, selecting the first product information…, transition to [displaying] second [results] including the image extracted and a store list… amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic / general-purpose computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element regarding sites (e.g. posting-person site, store site) does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. Internet). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h). See MPEP 2106(I) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (Fed. Cir. 2015) stating ‘An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer’. Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0027-28] describing the additional element of a posting-person site and store site as web sites, and the specification background ¶[0003] detailing the Internet for obtaining and posting information at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the connecting / communicating / transmitting are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for the registering / detecting / identifying steps), and amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. network, posting-person site, information terminal, store site, information retrieval server, communication interface) in these steps merely represents using generic / general computer components as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these connecting / communicating / transmitting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the storing / creating are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for the posting and subsequent detecting / identifying steps), and amount to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. storage device, user database, information terminal) in these steps merely represents using generic / general purpose computers as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these storing and creating steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the retrieving / receiving / acquiring are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering / retrieving data for the detecting / identifying steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. information terminal, processor, network, posting-person site, information terminal, communication interface) in these steps merely represents using generic / general computer components as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these retrieving / receiving / acquiring steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering, transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the extracting are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent displaying results), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computers (i.e. processor, posting-person site, network) in these steps merely represents using generic / general computer components as a tool, and adding a general linkage to a technology / field of use (i.e. Internet), which is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these extracting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering, transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data (Symantec), using a telephone for image transmission (TLI Communications), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the registering (e.g. register the posting-person identification information or the product identification information included in the received registration event to the user record) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for subsequent detecting), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of data storage / electronic record keeping, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. processor) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these registering steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the detecting (e.g. detect the product identified by the product identification information stored in the user record that stores the acquired user identification information, from information that is posted via the network by the posting-person site of the posting-person identified by the posting-person identification information stored in the user record that stores the acquired user identification information; detect sales information of a relevant product from the store site) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering / retrieving data for subsequent outputting / displayed results), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of data gathering, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computers (i.e. processor, network, posting-person site, store site) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer / general computer components as a tool, and generally linking use of the judicial exception to a field of use (i.e. Internet), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these detecting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data (Symantec), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the outputting (e.g. output the extracted image of the detected product and the sales information of the relevant product to the information terminal used by the consumer identified by the user identification information) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting / outputting results of the detecting), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of transmitting data / outputting data, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. processor, information terminal) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these outputting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, generally ‘applied’ to a field of use, and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering, transmitting data, and storing data. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to communicate related sales information about a product in a picture to a potential customer), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers, Internet), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to independent claim 1, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-4 and 7-9. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claim 2: First, the limitations wherein the information retrieval server includes a memory that stores an information retrieval program, and the processor executes the information retrieval program and is configured to acquire the user identification information from the information terminal via the communication interface, capture one of the user records that includes the acquired user identification information from the user database, retrieve information posted via the network by the posting-person site of the posting-person identified by the detected posting-person identification information, represent additional elements (extra-solution data transmission, data storage, data gathering; ‘applying’ the judicial exception by general purpose computers / general computer components) that are recited at a high level of detail and not a practical application or significantly more. The recitation of the information retrieval server, communication interface, network, store-site, storage device, user database, processor, memory are computer component elements recited at a high level of generality and amounts to using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive, to store, to transmit data) and ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use (Internet). Furthermore, these acquiring / capturing / retrieving steps are claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Second, the limitations detect the posting-person identification information from the captured user record, detect the product identification information from the captured user record, check whether or not there is a product identified by the detected product identification information in the retrieved information, detect sales information of the relevant product, presence of the product being checked, from the store site, and output the detected sales information of the relevant product to the information terminal used by the consumer identified by the acquired user identification information are directed to methods of organizing human activity (marketing or sales activities, managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the informational retrieval server, store site, and information terminal are component elements recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer and generally linking the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (Internet). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3: The limitation wherein the information terminal inputs the posting-person identification information of the posting-person and the product identification information of the product, represents an additional element (extra-solution data gathering) that is recited at a high level of detail and not a practical application or significantly more. The recitation of the information terminal is a computer element recited at a high level of generality and amounts to using computers as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data). Furthermore, this inputting step is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4: The limitations wherein the processor of the information retrieval server stores the posting-person identification information of the posting-person and the product identification information of the product, the posting-person identification information and the product identification information being input by the information terminal, in the user record that stores the user identification information of the consumer who operates the information terminal in association with the user identification information represent additional elements (extra-solution data storage, data gathering) that are recited at a high level of detail and not a practical application or significantly more. The recitation of the processor of information retrieval server, information terminal are computer elements recited at a high level of generality and amounts to using computers as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data, to store data). Furthermore, these storing / inputting step is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7: The limitation wherein the information terminal accepts a product for which the sales information is requested to be collected from products of the displayed image is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (marketing or sales activities, managing personal behavior or interactions between people) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the information terminal is computer elements recited at a high level of generality and amounts to and amounts to using computers as a tool. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8: The limitation wherein the processor of the information retrieval server detects the sales information of the accepted product from the store site is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (marketing or sales activities, managing personal behavior or interactions between people) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the processor of the information retrieval server is a computer element recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer, and the store site represents generally linking the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (i.e. Internet). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9: The limitation wherein the sales information of the relevant product includes at least information related to a store site of a store that sells the product merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. The recitation of the store site represents generally linking the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (i.e. Internet). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Therefore claim 1, and the dependent claims 2-4 and 7-9 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 7-9 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2020/0357080 A1 to Bogaard et al. in view of US patent application publication 2021/0142381 A1 to Gutman et al. in view of “How to use Google Lens for charity shopping success” <https://www.teaandforgetmenots.com/how-to-use-google-lens-for-charity-shopping-success/> (<https://web.archive.org/web/20220313064903/https://www.teaandforgetmenots.com/how-to-use-google-lens-for-charity-shopping-success/> captured on 13 March 2022 using Wayback Machine) to Bower in view of US patent publication 10,684,738 B1 to Sicora et al.
Claim 1:
Bogaard, as shown, teaches the following:
An information retrieval system, comprising:
a posting-person site that is connected to the network and used by a posting-person to post information of a product (Bogaard Fig 3, ¶[0099], ¶[0109], ¶[0113-114] details the influencer is prompted to post, manually posts, or automatically posts about their product / service transaction);
an information terminal connected to a network that transmits a registration event over the network in registration mode and a retrieval event over the network in retrieval mode by a consumer, the registration event including posting-person identification information for identifying the posting-person of the posting-person site designated by the consumer or product identification information for identifying a product designated by the consumer and user identification information for identifying the above consumer, and the retrieval event including the user identification information (Bogaard Fig 1A, ¶[0033], ¶[0048], ¶[0174], ¶[0180] details both the influencer and fan register their users with the platform and opt-in the program with their profile preferences, the profile stores their interaction with influencers; and monitoring the interactions of an influencers feed with fans, recognizing when there is an influencer-influenced fan-purchase that also includes a matching item(s) or service and confirming when a user (fan) views an influencer promotion;
a store site that is connected to the network and used by a store to provide sales information of various products (Bogaard Fig 1C, Fig 14, ¶[0081], ¶[0179-180], ¶[0183-186] details interacting with commerce sources / restaurants / websites / retailers through an API to obtain discount / reward information to provide for fans of the influencer and confirm the payment transactions associated with the influencer); and
an information retrieval server that is connected to the network (Bogaard ¶[0214] details a server and cloud / network based service) and includes:
a communication interface that is connected to the network and performs data communication with the posting-person site, the store site via the network and information terminal (Bogaard Fig 1C, ¶[0037], ¶[0041], ¶[0127], ¶[0214] details the system interfaces with the influencer device, the client device, the social media network, and commerce sources; with computer devices communicating through the Internet; and ¶[0115] details the platform intermediates between retailers, fans, and influencers),
a storage device that includes a user database as an aggregate of user records created for each consumer who uses the information terminal, the user records including the user identification information, the posting-person identification information, and the product identification information (Bogaard Fig 1C, ¶[0048], ¶[0157], ¶[0167] details creating a profile of each fan based on the data regarding interactions with an influencers content feed, and storing fan activity and fan interactions in a computer accessible database, tracking that the fan viewed an influencer feed and which particular posts (e.g. an image of a purchased product)), and
a processor configured to
when the registration event is received via the communication interface, acquire user identification information from the received registration event (Bogaard ¶[0033], ¶[0126], ¶[0163] details the website is programed to prompt the user to register and confirm the user’s identity),
register the posting-person identification information or the product identification information included in the received registration event to the user record that stores the acquired user identification information (Bogaard ¶[0048] details storing profile information for each fan actively monitoring the interactions of an influencers content feed with fans, generating a profile of each fan based at least in part on the data),
when the retrieval event is received via the communication interface, acquire user identification information from the received retrieval event (Bogaard ¶[0126], ¶[0157] details when a fan scrolls through one’s own feed on their user device accessing the platform through the Internet, the platform automatically tracks which shared influencer posts the fan has viewed, storing a record with fan activity and fan interaction),
detect the product identified by the product identification information stored in the user record that stores the acquired user identification information, from information that is posted via the network by the posting-person site of the posting-person identified by the posting-person identification information stored in the user record that stores the acquired user identification information (Bogaard Fig 2, ¶[0086-88], ¶[0137] details performing image/text/audio analysis of an influencer’s posts including inference based on image analysis, and the image / content of the post is associated with an influencer approved transaction, which are stored in the database records of an influencer user),
With respect to the following:
extracts an image of the detected product from information posted by the posting-person site via the network,
Bogaard, as shown in Fig 2, ¶[0086], ¶[0102] details performing image / text analysis of an Influencer’s post to identify a product, e.g. a new brand shirt or sunglasses, highly suggesting but not explicitly stating extracting an image of the detected product from information posted by the posting-person site via the network. To the extent that Bogaard may not explicitly state this, Gutman teaches this limitation identifying a social media post with an image and text and then extracting images from the post that include the products depicted in the images (Gutman Fig. 2, ¶[0031-32]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include extracting an image of the detected product from information posted by the posting-person site via the network as taught by Gutman with the teachings of Bogaard, with the motivation to “offer purchased items displayed in social media posts” (Gutman ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include extracting an image of the detected product from information posted by the posting-person site via the network as taught by Gutman in the system of Bogaard, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
detect sales information of a relevant product from the store site, and
Bogaard, as shown in Fig 9, ¶[0081], ¶[0112], ¶[0166], ¶[0185] details receiving the merchant name, payment total, item details related to the items purchased by the influencer; using API to query the restaurant (i.e. store site) of the influencer’s purchase / post about it and provide options for the restaurant to provide a discount / rewards / offer to the influencer’s fans in response to the influencer’s post; but does not explicitly state a relevant product. However, Gutman teaches this limitation determining a set of retailers that offer the product in the social media post for sale (i.e. same product), and/or offer similar products to the product in the social media post, and pricing data of the product and similar products (e.g. $500 designer t-shirt and less expensive / cheaper versions of the t-shirt) (Gutman ¶[0054-55]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect sales information of a relevant product from the store site as taught by Gutman with the teachings of Bogaard (in view of Gutman), with the motivation that “when an individual views a social media post featuring his/her favorite celebrity wearing a particular article of clothing, that individual may wish to purchase the same (or a similar) article of clothing” and “seeking to identify less expensive versions of the product” (Gutman ¶[0004]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include detecting sales information of a relevant product from the store site as taught by Gutman in the system of Bogaard (in view of Gutman), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
output the extracted image of the detected product and the sales information of the relevant product to the information terminal used by the consumer identified by the user identification information,
Bogaard, as shown in Fig 9, ¶[0122], ¶[0163] details outputting the image after performing image analysis (i.e. the image of the detected product) with coupon / discount information regarding a product in the image, on the mobile device used by the fan that requires the user to login into the system (i.e. information terminal used by the consumer identified by the user identification information), but does not explicitly state outputting the detected product and the sales information of the relevant product to the information terminal used by the consumer. However, Bower teaches this remaining feature, selecting an image that includes a product and applying Google lens, which then outputs a second screen on the user’s device with the original product extracted from the image at the top (labeled Original Image below) and then the best matches of similar products with their pricing data on respective web sites (labeled Sales Information of Relevant Product below) (Bower pg. 1 ¶ beginning “Search. This shows photo results of the item and similar items…” and “Shop. This pulls up results where you can buy the item…”; pg. 2-3 sections 1 through 6 in particular the second picture on pg. 3 represented below).
PNG
media_image1.png
705
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bower pg. 3 second picture
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to output the extracted image of the detected product and the sales information of the relevant product to the information terminal used by the consumer as taught by Bower with the teachings of Bogaard in view of Gutman, with the motivation for “shopping to find out information about the products” (Bower pg. 1 ¶ beginning “Have you heard of Google Lens?...”). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include outputting the extracted image of the detected product and the sales information of the relevant product to the information terminal used by the consumer as taught by Bower in the system of Bogaard in view of Gutman, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Bogaard (in view of Gutman in view of Bower, applying that the image includes an extracted product per Gutman / Bower above) also teaches the following:
wherein
the information terminal displays a first screen including a product list comprising one or more product information sections, a first product information section of which includes the image extracted from the information posted by the posting-person site in association with the posting person identification information and the product identification information (Bogaard Fig 2, Fig 9 details displaying a first screen with the image by the posting person that has been analyzed to identify the products (i.e. extracted image in the product information section), and the screen also lists product identifying information in popups), and
With respect to the following:
upon a selection of the first product information section, the information terminal causes the first screen to transition to a second screen including i) the image extracted from the information posted by the posting-person site and ii) a store list comprising one or more store information sections, a first store information section of which includes the sales information detected from the store site in association with a similarity degree indicating similarity of the extracted image of the detected product with an image of the relevant product.
Bogaard, as shown in Fig 2, ¶[0086], ¶[0102] details the image is from a social media site and analyzed by image analysis to obtain the product (i.e. the image is extracted from the information posted by the posting-person site); Gutman, as shown in Fig. 2, ¶[0031-32], ¶[0034-35] details the image is extracted from information posted by the website, and identifying products with a given degree of similarity to the product in the social media post and offering those products that have different sales information to the user; and Bower, as shown in pg. 1 ¶ beginning “Search. This shows photo results of the item and similar items…” and “Shop. This pulls up results where you can buy the item…”; pg. 2-3 sections 1 through 6 in particular the second picture on pg. 3 details selecting an image of a product, the image of the product is analyzed with Google Lens (i.e. extracted) to provide search results based on the image, and a second screen is presented on the user’s device with the original product from the image at the top and the search results present the best matches of similar products with their pricing data and their respective web sites (i.e. store list and store information section that includes sales information detected from the store site); but Bogaard / Gutman / Bower does not explicitly state displaying the results in association with a similarity degree indicating similarity of the detected product with an image of the relevant product. However, Sicora teaches this remaining feature, with social media influencers posting content about a product, providing search results that match a search query from posts / product elements, and search results can include information for each of the search results that include a thumbnail image and scores indicating how relevant each of the results are to the search query (e.g. match score), i.e. a similarity degree indicating similarity (Sicora Fig 43A, col 10 ln 43-55, col 113 ln 23-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include displaying results in association with a similarity degree indicating similarity of the extracted image of the detected product with an image of the relevant product as taught by Sicora with the teachings of Bogaard in view of Gutman in view of Bower, with the motivation “to provide an improved platform and user interface for users to access/associate/contribute social media content… to allow users to associate and interact with each of the content items, to perform social media and other interactions (e.g., purchasing)” (Sicora col 31 ln 46-62). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include displaying results in association with a similarity degree indicating similarity of the extracted image of the detected product with an image of the relevant product as taught by Sicora in the system of Bogaard in view of Gutman in view of Bower, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 2:
Bogaard in view of Gutman in view of Bower in view of Sicora, as shown, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Bogaard also teaches the following:
wherein the information retrieval server includes
a memory that stores an information retrieval program (Bogaard ¶[0173], ¶[0222] details memory), and
the processor executes the information retrieval program (Bogaard ¶[0222] details a processor) and is configured to
acquire the user identification information from the information terminal via the communication interface (Bogaard Fig 1A, ¶[0033], ¶[0174], ¶[0180] details both the influencer and fan register their users with the platform and opt-in, recognizing when there is an influencer-influenced fan-purchase that also includes a matching item(s) or service, and confirming when a user (fan) views an influencer promotion),
capture one of the user records that includes the acquired user identification information from the user database (Bogaard ¶[0087], ¶[0137-138] details approved transactions of an influencer that reflect purchased transactions are stored in the database and listed as a UI summary page or presented as posts),
detect the posting-person identification information from the captured user record (Bogaard ¶[0142-143], ¶[0172-173] details determining if there is a further match between the fan and the influencer’s purchase transactions based upon confirmed and tracked item(s) purchased and services received),
detect the product identification information from the captured user record (Bogaard ¶[0142-143], ¶[0172-173] details determining if there is a further match between the fan and the influencer’s purchase transactions based upon confirmed and tracked item(s) purchased and services received),
retrieve information posted via the network by the posting-person site of the posting-person identified by the detected posting-person identification information (Bogaard Fig 2, ¶[0086-88], ¶[0137], ¶[0142] details performing image/text/audio analysis of an influencer’s posts including inference based on image analysis, and the image / content of the post is associated with an influencer approved transaction (e.g. taking a photo of the item purchased), which are stored in the database records of an influencer user),
check whether or not there is a product identified by the detected product identification information in the retrieved information (Bogaard Fig 2, ¶[0042], ¶[0086-88], ¶[0137], ¶[0142] details performing image/text/audio analysis of an influencer’s posts including inference based on image analysis, and the image / content of the post is associated with an influencer approved transaction (e.g. taking a photo of the item purchased), and using machine learning to analyze the content of the channel / events),
Bower (of Bogaard in view of Gutman in view of Bower in view of Sicora, applying that the user is identified using their device, per Bogaard above) also teaches the following:
detect sales information of the relevant product, presence of the product being checked, from the store site (Bower pg. 1 ¶ beginning “Shop. This pulls up results where you can buy the item you’re looking for…”, pg. 3 Items 4-5 including picture 2 details Google Lens identifying search results that match the product in the image and the prices of each are presented in the corner of each product picture from the websites where they are currently available listed below each product picture), and
output the detected sales information of the relevant product to the information terminal used by the consumer identified by the acquired user identification information (Bower pg. 1 ¶ beginning “Shop. This pulls up results where you can buy the item you’re looking for…”, pg. 3 Items 4-5 including picture 2 details Google Lens identifying search results that match the product in the image and the prices of each are presented in the corner of each product picture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect sales information of the relevant product, presence of the product being checked, from the store site; and output the detected sales information of the relevant product to the information terminal used by the consumer as taught by Bower with the teachings of Bogaard in view of Gutman (in view of Bower in view of Sicora), with the motivation for “shopping to find out information about the products” (Bower pg. 1 ¶ beginning “Have you heard of Google Lens?...”). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include detecting sales information of the relevant product, presence of the product being checked, from the store site; and output the detected sales information of the relevant product to the information terminal used by the consumer as taught by Bower in the system of Bogaard in view of Gutman (in view of Bower in view of Sicora), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 3:
Bogaard in view of Gutman in view of Bower in view of Sicora, as shown, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Bogaard also teaches the following:
wherein the information terminal inputs the posting-person identification information of the posting-person and the product identification information of the product (Bogaard Fig 4, ¶[0099], ¶[0103-105], ¶[0126] details a user / influencer using their user device to register, and the influencer inputs their privacy / security profile and posts content related to the transaction and the selected items to their channel / page).
Claim 4:
Bogaard in view of Gutman in view of Bower in view of Sicora, as shown, teaches the limitations of claim 3. Bogaard also teaches the following:
wherein the processor of the information retrieval server stores the posting-person identification information of the posting-person and the product identification information of the product, the posting-person identification information and the product identification information being input by the information terminal, in the user record that stores the user identification information of the consumer who operates the information terminal in association with the user identification information (Bogaard ¶[0087], ¶[0122], ¶[0137], ¶[0148] details storing database records in association with the influencer user that include the transaction details regarding the transactions and each of the items purchased by the influencer, and transactions are posted by the influencer; and the fan profile records include details about the fan interaction with influencers).
Claim 7:
Bogaard in view of Gutman in view of Bower in view of Sicora, as shown, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Gutman also teaches the following:
wherein the information terminal accepts a product for which the sales information is requested to be collected from products of the displayed image (Gutman Fig. 2, ¶[0031-32] details presenting images of the product(s) extracted from the social media post to the user, which also include a link which the user may purchase the product).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the information terminal accepts a product for which the sales information is requested to be collected from products of the displayed image as taught by Gutman with the teachings of Bogaard (in view of Gutman), with the motivation to “offer purchased items displayed in social media posts” (Gutman ¶[0001]).In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the information terminal accepts a product for which the sales information is requested to be collected from products of the displayed image as taught by Gutman in the system of Bogaard (in view of Gutman), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 8:
Bogaard in view of Gutman in view of Bower in view of Sicora, as shown, teaches the limitations of claim 7. Bogaard also teaches the following:
wherein the processor of the information retrieval server detects the sales information of the accepted product from the store site (Bogaard Fig 1E, ¶[0085] details dynamically querying a retailer about a product when learning about a payment transaction to learn about incentives / discounts for the fans).
Claim 9:
Bogaard in view of Gutman in view of Bower in view of Sicora, as shown, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Bower also teaches the following:
wherein the sales information of the relevant product includes at least information related to a store site of a store that sells the product (Bower pg. 3 item 5 including picture 2) details presenting the cost of the matched items with the website links where the matched items are sold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to output wherein the sales information of the relevant product includes at least information related to a store site of a store that sells the product as taught by Bower with the teachings of Bogaard in view of Gutman (in view of Bower in view of Sicora), with the motivation for “shopping to find out information about the products” (Bower pg. 1 ¶ beginning “Have you heard of Google Lens?...”). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the sales information of the relevant product includes at least information related to a store site of a store that sells the product as taught by Bower in the system of Bogaard in view of Gutman (in view of Bower in view of Sicora), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628