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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an acquisition unit that…”, “a calculation unit that…”, “a mobile body determination unit that…”, “a user determination unit that…”, and “a notification unit that…” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim limitations, “an acquisition unit that…”, “a calculation unit that…”, “a mobile body determination unit that…”, “a user determination unit that…”, and “a notification unit that…”, in claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Applicant’s published specification teaches that “[t]he processor 11 is, for example, a central processing unit (CPU). An information acquisition unit 101, a sales article information presentation unit 102, a total amount calculation unit 103, a first mobility determination unit 104, a proxy determination unit 105, a delivery equipment specification unit 106, and a purchase content information notification unit 107 are implemented by the processor 11.” See paragraph 0073 (See also paragraph 0140).
Applicant’s specification fails to describe the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function(s).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-14 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 processing and delivery a product.
Exemplary claim 13 recites in part,
“…acquires first information regarding an article a first user residing in a predetermined area requests to purchase;
…calculates a total amount of the article the first user requests to purchase based on the first information;
…determines a first mobile body that is able to load the article the first user requests to purchase, from among a plurality of mobile bodies based on the total amount;
…determines a third user who delivers the article the first user requests to purchase to the first user, from among second users residing in the predetermined area and using the determined first mobile body; and
notifies the determined third user of second information regarding the purchase of the article indicated by the first information.”
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data (article for purchase) (2) analyzing and processing the acquired data to determine total amount, mobile body and delivery, and 3) transmitting the result.
The above steps describe the process of processing and delivering a purchase order (product). The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (sales activities or behavior) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, sales activities or 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 claims recite additional elements in the form of, “an acquisition unit”, “a calculation unit”, “a mobile body determination unit”, “a user determination unit”, and “a notification unit”, to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The additional elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
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. The additional 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 13 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 14 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 13, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-12 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed controller is directed to “software per se or program per se” that does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 13 recites, “an acquisition unit”, “a calculation unit”, “a mobile body determination unit”, “a user determination unit”, and “a notification unit”.
Applicant’s published specification teaches that “[t]he processor 11 is, for example, a central processing unit (CPU). An information acquisition unit 101, a sales article information presentation unit 102, a total amount calculation unit 103, a first mobility determination unit 104, a proxy determination unit 105, a delivery equipment specification unit 106, and a purchase content information notification unit 107 are implemented by the processor 11.” See paragraph 0073 (See also paragraph 0140).
In addition, Applicant’s published specification teaches that “[s]ome or all functions of the devices according to the embodiments of the present disclosure are implemented as large scale integration (LSI), which is typically an integrated circuit. These may be individually integrated into one chip, or may be integrated into one chip so as to include some or all functions. Circuit integration is not limited to LSI, and may be implemented by a dedicated circuit or a general-purpose processor. A field programmable gate array (FPGA), which can be programmed after manufacturing of LSI, or a reconfigurable processor in which connection and setting of circuit cells inside LSI can be reconfigured may be used.” See paragraph 0184.
Applicant’s published specification fails to define whether the recited “acquisition unit”, “calculation unit”, “mobile body determination unit”, “user determination unit”, and “notification unit” are hardware or software.
“Software per se” or “program per se” does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2021082038 (Takao et al. – hereinafter Takao).
Referring to claim 1, Takao discloses an information processing method in an information processing device, the information processing method comprising: [See paragraph 0001]
acquiring first information regarding an article a first user residing in a predetermined area requests to purchase; [See paragraph 0022]
calculating a total amount of the article the first user requests to purchase based on the first information; [See paragraph 0022]
determining a first mobile body that is able to load the article the first user requests to purchase, from among a plurality of mobile bodies based on the total amount; [See paragraph 0073]
determining a third user who delivers the article the first user requests to purchase to the first user, from among second users residing in the predetermined area and using the determined first mobile body; and [See paragraphs 0073, 0074]
notifying the determined third user of second information regarding the purchase of the article indicated by the first information. [See paragraph 0075]
Referring to claim 2, Takao discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising presenting third information regarding the article available for purchase to a plurality of the first users residing in the predetermined area, wherein acquiring the first information includes acquiring the first information regarding the article at least one first user of the plurality of first users requests to purchase. [See paragraphs 0022, 0086-0088]
Referring to claim 3, Takao discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the article is sold at one or more stores located in the predetermined area. [See paragraph 0075]
Referring to claim 7, Takao discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of mobile bodies includes two or more types of mobile bodies each having a different loadable capacity. [See paragraph 0073]
Referring to claim 8, Takao discloses the information processing method according to claim 7, wherein the two or more types of mobile bodies include a car, a motorcycle, and a bicycle. [See paragraph 0073]
Referring to claim 9, Takao discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the second information includes purchase list information indicating a list of the article to be purchased on behalf of the first users and delivery list information indicating a list of the purchased article for each of the first users of delivery destinations. [See paragraphs 0021-0023, 0031-0034, 0091]
Referring to claim 10, Takao discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein determining the third user includes determining the second user residing at a place closest to a store where the article is purchased as the third user from among the second users residing in the predetermined area and using the determined first mobile body. [See paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0033, 0074]
Referring to claim 11, Takao discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein determining the third user includes determining the second user residing at a place closest to an address of the first user as the third user from among the second users residing in the predetermined area and using the determined first mobile body. [See paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0033, 0074]
Referring to claim 12, Takao discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein determining the third user includes determining the second user who is able to purchase the article on a day when accepting substitution for purchase of the article as the third user from among the second users residing in the predetermined area and using the determined first mobile body. [See paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0033, 0074]
Referring to claims 13 and 14, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2017/0330970 (Kazama).
Referring to claim 4, Takao discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 above. Takao does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
predicting the total amount of the article scheduled for purchase based on third information regarding the article available for purchase and a past purchase history of the article available for purchase before acquiring the first information;
determining a second mobile body that is able to load the article scheduled for purchase from among the plurality of mobile bodies based on the predicted total amount; and
determining a prospective proxy user who delivers the scheduled article from among the second users residing in the predetermined area and using the determined second mobile body.
Kazama teaches a method with the limitations:
predicting the total amount of the article scheduled for purchase based on third information regarding the article available for purchase and a past purchase history of the article available for purchase before acquiring the first information; [See paragraphs 0020, 0047-0049, 0089]
determining a second mobile body that is able to load the article scheduled for purchase from among the plurality of mobile bodies based on the predicted total amount; and [See paragraphs 0056, 0057, 0070-0073, 0095, 0096]
determining a prospective proxy user who delivers the scheduled article from among the second users residing in the predetermined area and using the determined second mobile body. [See paragraphs 0056, 0057, 0070-0073, 0095, 0096]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Takao to have incorporated a purchase prediction model as in Kazama with the motivation of predicting a user’s intent to purchase based on purchase history. [See Kazama paragraphs 0056, 0057, 0070-0073, 0095, 0096]
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Takao and Kazama discloses the information processing method according to claim 4, wherein determining the third user includes determining the prospective proxy user to be the third user when the first mobile body is identical to the second mobile body. [See Kazama paragraphs 0056, 0057, 0070-0073, 0095, 0096]
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Takao and Kazama discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising specifying delivery equipment required when delivering the article based on an attribute of the article, wherein the second information includes information regarding the delivery equipment. [See Kazama paragraphs 0056, 0057, 0070-0073, 0095, 0096]
Conclusion
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