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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on April 10, 2026 cancelled no claims. Claims 1 and 8-9 were amended and no new claims were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1-9.
Claim Interpretation
Claim Terms:
Container: a physical object within which products can be placed, such as a basket, shopping cart, shopping bag, etc. (Based on applicant’s specification in paragraph 12).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claims 1 and 9 include two periods. The first period after the limitation “wherein determination code is further configured to…when the second identification information is received from the terminal.”, and the other period at the end of the claims as currently amended. As per MPEP 608.01(m), periods are prohibited from appear anywhere but at the end of a claim except when used in abbreviations. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-7 inherit, and do not correct, the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are objected to by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium for storing a program that when executed by an information processing system comprising a display device, a terminal, and an information processing device connected via a communication network, causes the information processing system to” operate in the manner claimed. The examiner has been unable to find support in the applicant’s disclosure for a single program stored on a single computer-readable non-transitory storage medium being executed by an information processing system comprising three different computing devices which are connected via a communication, wherein each of the different computing devices performs different functions. It would appear that the applicant’s disclosure would support a first computer-readable non-transitory storage medium for storing a first program that when executed a display device cause the display device to perform its claimed functions. It would also appear that the applicant’s disclosure would support a second computer-readable non-transitory storage medium for storing a second program that when executed a terminal cause the terminal to perform its claimed functions. It would appear that the applicant’s disclosure would also support a third computer-readable non-transitory storage medium for storing a third program that when executed an information processing device cause the information processing device to perform its claimed functions. Finally, it would also appear that the applicant’s disclosure would support these three different devices executing these three different programs which are stored on three different computer-readable non-transitory storage mediums being able to communicate with one another via a communication network. However, the examiner has been unable to find support for a single program stored on a single non-transitory computer readable medium that is executable by the three different devices the claimed information processing system comprises. As such, it is clear that the claim 9, as currently amended, fails to comply with the written description requirement
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.
The amendment filed on April 10, 2026 has failed to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-7. While, the amendment corrected some of the issues it failed to correct others and introduced a number of other 112(b) issues.
Claims 1-9 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.
Independent claim 1, as amended recites:
“a display device that displays an advertisement about a product, the display device equipped with a tag reader which is configured to read the tag lD of the tag attached to the container based on a user using the container being present in vicinity of the display device”;
“wherein the terminal reads the container ID of the container used by the user at a time of accounting and acquires product information about a product purchased by the user”
These two different recitations of “a product” do not have antecedent basis to one another and appear to be intended, at least initially, to be two different products: an advertised product and a purchased product. However, the remainder of the claim, as amended, includes only recitations of “the product” which make it difficult to determine which of the two products the applicant is intending the claimed “the product” to refer. Likewise, the claim recites “the tag ID” but has never previously recited “a tag ID”. As currently claimed the container has “a tag” attaches, the tag is an “RF tag” and corresponds to “a radio frequency identification (RFID)”. The tag has a “container ID” that uniquely recognizes the container. As such, it is impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether “the tag ID” is intended to have antecedent basis to the previously recited “a radio frequency identification (RFID)” of the tag which is an RF tag, the previously recited “a container ID” that the tag has, or a new type of “tag ID” associated with the tag.
As currently amended the limitation: “first receiving code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive first identification information for identifying the container used by the user, from the display device that displays the advertisement about the product; wherein the first identification information comprises the container ID of the tag attached to the container”, it most likely referring to the advertised product because it is the product that the display device displays the advertisement about. Likewise, the claimed “first identification information” received from the display devices is “the container ID”, based on this limitation. However, the claim never indicated that the display device ever obtained “the container ID”. Instead, the display device was configured to read “the tag ID”.
As currently amended the limitation recites: “second receiving code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive, from the terminal, second identification information for identifying the container used by the user who purchased the product and product information about the product”. First, the recited “product information” does not have antecedent basis to the previously claimed “product information about a product purchased by the user”. Second, the claim never requires the “second identification information” to received from the terminal to comprise “the container ID”. Instead, the “second identification information” is merely required to be usable to “identify the container”. As such, it is unclear whether the applicant intends the second identification information to comprise at least “the container ID” and “the product information”, or whether this can be some other type of information usable to identify the container and some other product information. Thus, the claim limitation is indefinite. In all likelihood, “the product” references in the limitation is intended to refer to the purchased product; the claimed “product information” is intended to have antecedent basis to the previously claimed “product information”; and the second information for identifying the container is intended to comprise “the container ID”, because the terminal reads the container ID and acquires product information about a product purchased. However, as currently written such an interpretation requires one of ordinary skill in the art to make a number of assumptions which are not precisely laid out in the language of the claim itself.
Next, as currently amended determination code is required to: “determine that the user who used the container purchased the product after viewing the advertisement, when the first identification information received from the display device matches the second identification information received from the terminal and further the product information received from the terminal corresponds to the advertisement displayed on the display device. The claimed “the product” in this limitation could be intended to have antecedent basis to the advertised product, the purchased product, or both depending on how one parses the limitation. If the determination being made is that the advertised product was purchased after viewing the advertisement it has antecedent basis to the advertised product. If the determination being made is that an advertisement was viewed and a product was purchased, but not necessarily the advertised product, then it has antecedent basis to the purchased product. However, given the remainder of the limitation it appears that the applicant is somehow intending the claimed “the product” to have antecedent basis to both the advertised product and the purchased product which prior to this point were two separate products. Likewise, the limitation requires matching “the first identification information” and “the second identification information”. However, there does not appear to be any way to match such information. While the claim does require the first identification information to somehow comprise “the container ID” (even though the display device from which the first identification information was received never obtained “the container ID” because it obtained “a tag ID”), the second identification information has never required to comprise “the container ID”. As such, the claim does not require a single type of information to be present in both the first identification information and the second identification information. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention is expected to perform such matching. Finally, this limitation requires determining “the product information received from the terminal corresponds to the advertisement displayed on the display device”. While the second identification information received from the terminal includes “product information about the product”, which is likely referring to the product information about the purchased product, neither the display device never provides information processing device with any type of information regarding the advertisement it displays in the first identification information or in any other way, must less the advertised product in the advertisement, nor is the information processing device required to provide the advertisement to the display device. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the determination code of information processing device is able to make such a determination. While it is true that the memory of the information processing device stores an advertising database with data related to advertisements and product corresponding to advertisements, it would still need to know at least an advertisement ID of the advertisement the display device displayed to look up in the advertising database product information corresponding to the advertisement.
Next, the claim recites “wherein determination code is further configured to search the advertising management database to determine whether there is a record that contains the same container ID as the container ID received from the terminal, store the container ID received from the display device with associated date and time when receiving the first identification information, and search for the container ID within records for which the date and time is within a predetermined period of time from when the second identification information is received from the terminal”. First “determination code” does not have proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed “determination code”, yet the “further configured to” language appears to indicate that it is suppose to have such antecedent basis. Second, the limitation requires searching “the advertising management database to determine whether there is a record that contains the same container ID as the container ID received from the terminal”. As indicated above the claim does not require the second identification information to include “the container ID”. Likewise, the claim does not require the advertising management database to have any information regarding a container ID, much less “a record that contains the same container ID”. The only thing we know about the advertising management database is that it somehow manages advertising effectiveness. We do not know what type of records it store; where the information stored in the database came from, or how it manages advertising effectiveness. We certainly have no idea how a record in the advertising management database could possibly have a record that has a container ID much less “a record that contains the same container ID”. The container ID is associated with the tag on the container and not associated with the advertisement. The display device does not provide the information processing device with any information regarding the advertisements it displays, and the information processing device is not required to send the advertisement to the display device. As such, the information processing device would not appear to be able to know what advertisements are displayed and advertisement ID associated with such advertisements. Without some idea of the types of records the advertising management database store and some idea of how advertisements are being managed by the invention it would not appear to be possible to perform such a search. Likewise, the storing of “the container ID received from the display device with associated date and time when receiving the first identification information” is also problematic. As discussed earlier, the display device never acquires the “container ID”, it only acquires the “tag ID”, as such it is unclear how the first identification information can comprise “the container ID”. Additionally, the claim does not require the display device to obtain or record the date and time the advertisement was display or the date and time the “tag ID” was acquired. As such, the only “associated date and time” that would appear possible for the determination code to store would be the date and time the first identification information was received by the information processing device. Finally, the limitation requires searching “for the container ID within records for which the date and time is within a predetermined period of time from when the second identification information is received from the terminal”. What records are you referring to? The immediately preceding storing step did not indicate that the container ID with associated date and time be stored in records of any kind, nor that said storing was done in the advertising management database. The only record previously claimed was a record which somehow is included in the advertising management database. Likewise, “a predetermined period of time from when the second identification information is received from the terminal” would indicate that the predetermined period of time comes after the second identification information is received from the terminal. However, the “container ID” was in the first identification information. The claim never required the second identification information to include “the container ID”. Likewise, the date and time was only stored when the first identification information is received. As such, it appears that the applicant is claiming searching the records for a container ID with a date and time based on the receipt of the first identification information which was received within a predetermined period of time after the second identification information was received. However, based on the claim the first identification information would be received prior to the second identification information. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able figure out how the applicant’s invention can perform this limitation. The examiner suspects that the applicant intends the limitation to require the second identification information to comprise the container ID, recording a date and time when the second identification information is received, searching some type of record for “the container ID” associated with the date and time the first identification information was received; and determine whether the date and time the first identification information comprising the container ID was received was within a predetermined period of time preceding the data and time associated with the second identification information comprising the container ID being received. However, this is not what is currently being claimed. that “the container associated with search for a record of “the container ID” with the date and time.
Finally, the claim recites: “acquire an advertising identifier corresponding to the purchased product identifier received from the terminal from the advertising database, and determine whether the acquired advertising identifier matches the advertising identifier in the record in the advertising management database, and store the purchased product identifier received from the terminal into the record containing the same container ID as the container ID received from the terminal when the acquired advertising identifier matches the advertising identifier in the record”. First, the claim has never previously recited “a purchased product identifier”, much less one received from the terminal, nor that “the advertising database” store “an advertising identifier”. The only information the claim requires to be received from the terminal is second identification information for identifying the container used by the user who purchased the product and product information about the product. There is no indication that the product information included a purchased product identifier. The only information stores in the advertising database is data related to advertisements and products corresponding to the advertisements. Thus, there is no indication that the data related to advertisements includes an advertising identifier or what this might be. Is this supposed to be an advertisement ID of some kind? A advertiser ID of some kind? An identifier of some kind that is associate when advertising takes place on the display device? An identifier of an advertising campaign comprising a plurality of different types of advertisements? Next, the claim requires determining “whether the acquired advertising identifier matches the advertising identifier in the record in the advertising management database”, The only advertising identifier previously recited in the claim is in the immediately preceding acquiring step. Thus, the claimed “the acquired advertising identifier” and the claimed “the advertising identifier” can both only have antecedent basis to the claimed “an advertising identifier” which is acquired. As such, they must always match. However, the limitation appears to indicate that “the advertising identifier” is intended to have antecedent basis to some other element in the claim. Likewise, “the record” could be intended to have antecedent basis to the previously claims “a record” which somehow is in the advertising management database based on the searching the advertising management database step of the claim, despite the fact that the claim only previously indicated that the advertising management database manages advertising effectiveness, but not that it contains any such records which could be search. However, the claim also previously recites “records” in the “search for the container ID within records” step. As such, the claimed “the record” might be intended to be one of these records. In either case, the claim has never indicated that the record of the adverting management database or the records in the searching step stored “an advertising identifier” of any kind. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to figure out how the applicant’s invention is expected to be able to make this determination. Finally, the limitation requires storing “the purchased product identifier received from the terminal into the record containing the same container ID as the container ID received from the terminal when the acquired advertising identifier matches the advertising identifier in the record”. As indicated previously, the claim never required a purchased product identifier to be received from the terminal nor that the container ID be received from the terminal; the claim does not appear to be able to search the advertising management database to determine whether there is a record that contains the same ID; and the claim does not appear to be capable of determining whether the acquired advertising identifier matches the advertising identifier in the record in the advertising management database. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention can store the purchased product identifier in the manner claimed.
Therefore, it is clear that claim 1, as currently amended, is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
While independent claims 8 and 9, are slightly different in scope in that they both require the display device to acquire the container ID; require that the first identification information comprise the container ID; and require the second identification information to comprise the container ID, they both suffer from the same deficiencies identified with regards to claim 1 with respect to the other recited limitations. Therefore, it is clear that claims 8 and 9, as currently amended, are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2-7 fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-9 have not been rejected under 35 USC 101 because they recite a specific arrangement of devices, each performing specific functions, that result in an improvement to a technology or technological field and, as such, transform the abstract idea into specific practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or are considered “significantly more” under Step 2b.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable over the prior art of the applicant were to be able to overcome the Claim Objections, the 112(a) rejections, and the 112(b) rejections detailed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner has found prior art (see Tsuchida: JP2021176061A; Brice et al.: 2006/0293968; and Uki: JP2010049483A) which discloses: an information processing system, an information processing method, and a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium comprising:
an information processing device connected to a display device and a terminal via a communication network, the information processing device comprising: at least one memory configured to store program code, wherein the at least one memory stores an advertising database that stores data related to advertisements and products corresponding to the advertisements and an advertising management database that manages advertising effectiveness, and at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including:
first receiving code configure to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive first identification information for identifying the container used by the user, from the display device that displays the advertisement about the product, wherein the first identification information comprises a container ID of a tag attached to the container,
second receiving code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive, from the terminal, second identification information for identifying the container used by the user who purchased the product and product information about the product,
determination code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to
determine that the user who used the container purchased the product after viewing the advertisement, when the first identification information received from the display device matches the second identification information received from the terminal and further the product information received from the terminal corresponds to the advertisement displayed on the display device, wherein determination code
search the advertising management database to determine whether there is a record that contains the same container ID as the container ID received from the terminal,
store the container ID received from the display device with associated date and time when receiving the first identification information, and
search for the container ID within records for which the date and time is within a predetermined period of time from when the second identification information is received from the terminal,
the container used in a store, the container having a tag attached, the tag being an RF tag corresponding to a radio frequency identification (RFID), wherein the tag has a container ID that is an identifier that uniquely recognizes the container;
the terminal installed in the store and configured to read the container ID, wherein the terminal reads the container ID of the container used by the user at a time of accounting; acquires product information about a product purchased by the user; and transmits, to the information processing device, the product information about the product and the second identification information comprising the container ID; and
a display device that displays an advertisement about a product, the display device equipped with a tag reader which is configured to read the container ID/tag ID of the tag attached to the container based on the user using the container being present in vicinity of the display device and transmitting, to the information processing device, the first identification information comprising the container ID.
The examiner has also found prior art (see Johnson: 2005/0187819) which if combined with Tsuchida: JP2021176061A, Brice et al.: 2006/0293968, and Uki: JP2010049483A would discloses:
wherein the determination code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to
acquire an advertising identifier corresponding to the purchased product identifier received from the terminal from the advertising database, and
determine whether the acquired advertising identifier matches the advertising identifier in the record in the advertising management database, and
store the purchased product identifier received from the terminal into the record containing the same container ID as the container ID received from the terminal when the acquired advertising identifier matches the advertising identifier in the record.
Thus, the examiner has found prior art which teaches each and every limitation of the claims. However, the examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these four references to arrive at the applicant invention without using the applicant’s claims as a roadmap and, thereby, applying impermissible hindsight.
As such, claims 1-7 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the Claim Objections, the 112(a) rejections, and the 112(b) rejections detailed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 10, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot as the claim amendment has overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, 35 USC 101 rejections, and 35 USC 103 rejections detailed in the Non-Final Rejection dated January 13, 2026. However, the claim amendment introduced subject matter which has resulted in new Claim Objections, 35 USC 112(a) rejections, and 35 USC 112(b) rejections as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshimura et al. (PGPUB: 2019/0122290) which discloses displaying an advertisement on a display screen while a user is using a container and providing identification information of the container and identification information of a product associated the advertisement to a POS and determining that the purchased product corresponds to an advertisement displayed to the user.
Yoshimura et al. (PGPUB: 2019/0004762) which discloses accepting registration of a target image that is to be displayed on a display unit in a container and that is associated with location information, by a processor; sending, when acquiring the location information on a container or the display unit in the container and identification information on the container or the display unit in the container, the image registered in accordance with the location information to a destination that is associated with the identification information, by the processor; and displaying the image on the display unit in the container, by the processor.
Godoi et al. (PGPUB: 2022/0130216) which discloses obtaining a user’s face image of a user interacting with a container, providing the user’s face image to a server, and performing facial recognition for consumer identification.
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 JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm 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, Spar Ilana can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/John Van Bramer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights