DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 02/22/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2023-026519 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for generating and updating a transaction display based on defined rule(s).
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“register a plurality of items for purchase, (receiving item data)
calculate a first total amount of all of the registered items, (determine a first amount)
calculate a second total amount of one or more of the registered items belonging to one or more of the groups each associated with the flag indicating that a price of an item associated with the group is not to be excluded from a total amount of purchased items for the particular service to be provided by the store, and (determine a second amount)
generate a first screen for display…showing: (outputting a display screen)
a list of names and prices of the registered items, (displaying data)
a first symbol adjacent to each of one or more of the registered items belonging to a group associated with the flag indicating that a price of an item associated with the group is to be excluded from a total amount of purchased items used to determine eligibility for the particular service, and (displaying data)
upon receipt of a signal through the input device while the generated first screen is displayed, determine whether the second total amount is equal to or greater than a predetermined amount, and (comparing determined amount to predetermined amount)
upon determining that the second total amount is equal to or greater than the predetermined amount, update the first screen to show a second symbol adjacent to the selected amount.” (displaying the result based on comparison)
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data, 2) determining a first amount and a second amount based on defined rule(s), 3) display the result based on the determination, 4) comparing second amount to a predefined amount, and 5) updating the result.
The above steps describe the process of generating and updating a transaction display based on defined rule(s). The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (sales activities and/or managing people behavior) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers sales activities and/or managing people behavior, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The cited claim recites additional elements in the form of one or more computer elements (first display, input device, memory and processor) used to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract ideas identified above. The computer elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the steps of “storing first and second data” represents storing data, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. “Storing data” has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). In addition, the computing elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 4-7, 11-14 and 18-23 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
For example, claims 21-23 describe “generating an updated second screen for display on a second screen”. The step of “generating an updated screen” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Also see 2106.05(a)(I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-23 are allowed over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the cited and/or relevant prior art, single or in combination, teaches or suggests the combination:
“a processor configured to:
generate a first screen for display, the first screen showing:
a first symbol adjacent to each of one or more of the registered items belonging to a group associated with the flag indicating that a price of an item associated with the group is to be excluded from a total amount of purchased items used to determine eligibility for the particular service, and the first and second total amounts,
upon receipt of a signal through the input device while the generated first screen is displayed, determine whether the second total amount is equal to or greater than a predetermined amount, and
upon determining that the second total amount is equal to or greater than the predetermined amount, update the first screen to show a second symbol adjacent to the second total amount”,
are recited in claim 1.
Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are patentable over prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claimed invention describes generating updated transaction screens based on user input and defined rules. The claimed invention uses computer technology (first and second display device) to provide a solution of displaying updated transaction screens of one or more calculations based on defined rules.
In Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., the court held that the “basic concept of displaying two sets of information, using any means to display them without overlap, in which the secondary data set is acquired and organized by generic, conventional steps” is not direct to improvement in computer technology. The improvement in presenting two sets of information is not an improvement “rooted in computer technology.”
In the present case, the presentation of a first set of information on a first display screen and presenting a second updated screen based on user input and one or more defined rules on a second display, is not directed to improvement “rooted in computer technology”. The claimed invention uses computer technology (first and second display device) to provide a solution of displaying updated transaction screens of one or more calculations based on defined rules.
Accordingly, the claims recite a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
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 OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627