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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 11, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 11, 2025 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 products can be placed within, such as a basket, shopping cart, shopping bag, etc. (Based on applicant’s specification in paragraph 12).
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 1-7 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 recites “first receiving code configure to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive first identification information for identifying a container used by a user, from a display device that displays an advertisement about a product, wherein the first identification information comprises the container ID of the tag attached to the container; and second receiving code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive, from a terminal, second identification information for identifying a container used by a user who purchased a product and product information about the product”. The underlined terms above do not have proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed “a container”, “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 ID of the tag attached to the container based on a user using the container being present in vicinity of the display device” and/or “a 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 and acquires product information about a product purchased by the user”. While the examiner believe the applicant intended for the underlined terms to have antecedent basis to the previously claimed terms, and that this is merely a typographical error, the issues raises to the level of a 35 USC 112(b) rejection because the terms “the container”, “the user”, “the display device”, “the advertisement”, “the product”, “the terminal”, “purchased”, and “the product information” are further used through claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7. Should, any one of the plurality of underlined terms not be intended to have antecedent basis to the previously claimed terms and/or be mere typographical errors, the further recitation of said any one of the plurality of underlined terms would be indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine to which of the two possible claimed “a container”, “a user”, “a display device”, “an advertisement”, “a product”, “a terminal”, “purchased”, and/or “a product information” the recitation is supposed to have antecedent basis. As such, it is clear that claim 1 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.
Dependent claims 2-7 fail to correct the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
For the purpose of prosecuting the claims the examiner is going to interpret the limitations as if they had been amended to recite: “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 the container ID of the tag attached to the container; and 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 the product information about the product”.
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 8-9 are directed to a method and a computer program product which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim(s) 8-9 recite(s) the following abstract idea: (Examiner note: the display device, container, terminal, and product are outside the scope of the claims and, as such, has been included as part of the abstract idea because they cannot be considered “additional elements” of the claimed invention. Claim 8 is directed to a method performed by a processor of an information processing device. Thus, the scope of claim 8 is limited to the steps of the method that are actually performed by the processor of the information processing device. Claim 9 is directed towards a computer program product executed by a processor of an information processing device. Thus, the scope of claim 9 is limited to the steps of the computer program product that are actually performed by the processor of the information processing device.)
connecting, via a communication network, to a display device and a terminal;
receiving, from the display device that displays an advertisement about a product, first identification information for identifying a container used by a user who viewed the advertisement displayed on the display device, wherein the container is 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, and wherein the display device is equipped with a tag reader which is configured to read the container ID of the tag attached to the container based on the user using to container being present in the vicinity of the display device, wherein the first identification information comprises the container ID of the tag attached to the container;
receiving, from the terminal installed in the store and configured to read the container ID, second identification information for identifying a container used by a user who purchased a product and product information about the product, wherein the terminal reads the container ID of the container used by the user at a time of accounting and acquires the product information about the product purchased by the user;
accessing advertising data storing data related to advertisements and products corresponding to the advertisements and advertising management data that manages advertising effectiveness; and
determining 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 the determining further comprises searching the advertising management data to determine whether there is a record that contains the same container ID as the container ID received from the terminal,
storing the container ID received from the display device with associated date and time when receiving the first identification information, and
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.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e., “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of:
an information processing device with at least one memory; at least one processor executing software (e.g., first receiving code, second receiving code, determination code, etc.,); an advertising database; and an advertising management database) (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computing components).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
connecting, via a communication network, to a display device and a terminal (transmitting and/or receiving data);
receiving, from the display device that displays an advertisement about a product, first identification information for identifying a container used by a user who viewed the advertisement displayed on the display device, wherein the container is 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, and wherein the display device is equipped with a tag reader which is configured to read the container ID of the tag attached to the container based on the user using to container being present in the vicinity of the display device, wherein the first identification information comprises the container ID of the tag attached to the container (receiving data);
receiving, from the terminal installed in the store and configured to read the container ID, second identification information for identifying a container used by a user who purchased a product and product information about the product, wherein the terminal reads the container ID of the container used by the user at a time of accounting and acquires the product information about the product purchased by the user (receiving data);
wherein the at least one processor accesses an advertising database that stores data related to advertisements and products corresponding to the advertisements and an advertising management database that manages advertising effectiveness (transmitting and/or receiving data); and
storing the container ID received from the display device with associated date and time when receiving the first identification information (storing data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and/or one or more generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e., “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using an information processing device with at least one memory; at least one processor executing software; an advertising database; and an advertising management database (e.g., general-purpose computer and generic computer components) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and/or one or more generic computer components.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computers and/or one or more generic computer components (as evidenced from Figures 2 and 4 and paragraphs 16 and 19 of the applicant’s specification; and the Affinity v. DirecTV decision which discloses that databases are generic computer components); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
connecting, via a communication network, to a display device and a terminal (transmitting and/or receiving data);
receiving, from the display device that displays an advertisement about a product, first identification information for identifying a container used by a user who viewed the advertisement displayed on the display device, wherein the container is 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, and wherein the display device is equipped with a tag reader which is configured to read the container ID of the tag attached to the container based on the user using to container being present in the vicinity of the display device, wherein the first identification information comprises the container ID of the tag attached to the container (receiving data);
receiving, from the terminal installed in the store and configured to read the container ID, second identification information for identifying a container used by a user who purchased a product and product information about the product, wherein the terminal reads the container ID of the container used by the user at a time of accounting and acquires the product information about the product purchased by the user (receiving data);
wherein the at least one processor accesses an advertising database that stores data related to advertisements and products corresponding to the advertisements and an advertising management database that manages advertising effectiveness (transmitting and/or receiving data); and
storing the container ID received from the display device with associated date and time when receiving the first identification information (storing data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 8-9 are not patent eligible.
Claims 1-7 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida (JP2021176061A) in view of Brice et al (PGPUB: 2006/0293968) in further view of Uki (JP2010049483A).
Claims 1, 8, and 9: Tsuchida 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 (Page 2, Last Paragraph through Page 3, Paragraphs 1-3: the server is connected to the table terminals for digital signage (e.g. display devices) and a POS register which is a terminal of a POS system (e.g., terminal) via a communication network; Page 3, Paragraph 4 through Page 4, paragraph 2: the server includes a processor and a memory for executing instructions); Page 5, Paragraphs 1-2 and Page 11, Paragraph 2-3: the advertising content along with relevant attributes and advertising effectiveness for each customer, along with customer attributes are stored in manner such that matching can occur, thus they are stored in databases), 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 a container used by a user, from the display device that displays an advertisement about a product, wherein the first identification information comprises a container ID of a tag attached to the container; and 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; and
Tsuchida disclose:
first receiving code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive, from a display device that displays an advertisement about a product, first identification information for identifying a customer in a store who viewed the advertisement displayed on the display device (Page 3, paragraphs 1-3: receiving a first image of a customer in a store from a built in camera on digital signage that displays advertisements, wherein the image is used to identify the customer and customer attributes as well as tracking results such as product contact after seeing the advertisement and whether or not the contacted product is purchased); and
second receiving code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive, from a terminal, second identification information for identifying a user who purchased a product and product information about the product. (Page 12, Paragraphs 1-3: receiving, from a POS register with a built-in camera, a second image identifying the customer purchasing the product and product information scanned by the POS register)
In Tsuchida the first identification information obtained from the display device and the second identification obtained from the terminal are based on the user and not based on the container. Thus, Tsuchida does not disclose receiving a first identification information for identifying a container and second identification information for identifying the container, wherein the first identification information comprises a container ID of a tag attached to the container.
However, the analogous art of Brice discloses that it is known for a POS terminal to include an RFID reader that reads an RFID tag of a container being used by a customer when the user is checking out, obtaining the second identification information from the RFID tag, wherein the additional information includes a container ID, and transmitting the container ID to a server in at least paragraph 112.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Tsuchida to include a POS terminal comprising an RFID reader that obtains second identification information comprising the container ID from the RFID tag of the container when the user is checking out, and transmitting the container ID to a server as disclosed by Brice.
The motivation for doing so is to individually track the effectiveness of advertising and pricing campaigns without compromising the personal identify of the consumer, thereby alleviating privacy concerns of consumer groups (Brice – Paragraph 120).
Tsuchida and Brice do not disclose that the advertising display device is equipped with an RFID tag reader which obtains first identification information comprising the container ID of an RFID tag attached to the container.
However, the analogous art of Uki discloses that it is known for an advertising display device to read an RFID tag of a container, being used by a user using a RFID reader, to obtain information, to transmit the information to a server, receive an advertisement based on the information, and display the advertisement to the user in at least page 13, paragraph 8; page 5, paragraphs 3-7; page 8, paragraphs 1-2; page 9, paragraph 7 through page 10, paragraph 1 .
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention to Tsuchida and Brice such that the display device has an RFID reader which reads the RFID tag attached to a container being carried by the user to obtain information, such as the container ID information, and transmit the information to the server as disclosed by Uki.
The motivation for doing so is to individually track the effectiveness of advertising and pricing campaigns without compromising the personal identify of the consumer, thereby alleviating privacy concerns of consumer groups (Brice – Paragraph 120).
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 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;
Tsuchida, Brice, and Uki, as currently combined, disclose receiving the container ID which viewed an advertisement from the display device; receiving the container ID and product information from the terminal device when the user is checking out; and storing the information obtained from the display device and terminal device. Tsuchida, Brice, and Uki, as currently combined, further disclose on page 3, paragraph 3; page 6 paragraph 4; page 7, paragraph 2 through page 8, paragraph 2; and page 11, paragraph 5 through page 12, paragraph 5, 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 the determination code is further configured for searching the advertising management database to determine whether there is a record that contains a tracking ID that matches the tracking ID received from the terminal, storing the tracking ID received from the display device with associated date and time when receiving the first identification information, and searching for the tracking 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.
While it may be obvious that the function described in association with the tracking ID in Tsuchida, Brice, and Uki, as currently combined, would be performed with the container ID, the examiner has not made such an assertion with regard to said combination and, as such, the teachings of Tsuchida, Brice and Uki, as currently combined cannot be said to teach the determination code further comprising 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, storing the container ID received from the display device with associated date and time when receiving the first identification information, and 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.
However, the analogous art of Brice discloses that it is known to use a container ID for tracking the effectiveness of an advertisement resulting in a purchase and generating reports to such effects which requires searching the advertising management database to determine whether there is a record that contains a user that matches the user the same container ID as the container ID received from the terminal, storing the container ID received from the display device with associated date and time when receiving the first identification information, and 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 in at least paragraphs 121-122.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Tsuchida, Brice, and Uki, as previously combined, to replace the tracking ID with the cookie ID of Brice such that the searching, storing, and searching function used in tracking the effectiveness could be used based on the cookie ID instead of the tracking ID.
The motivation for doing so is to individually track the effectiveness of advertising and pricing campaigns without compromising the personal identify of the consumer, thereby alleviating privacy concerns of consumer groups (Brice – Paragraph 120).
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 (Brice – Paragraph 112);
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 and acquires product information about a product purchased by the user (Brice – Paragraph 112); 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 tag ID of the tag attached to the container based on a user using a container being present in vicinity of the display device (Uki - Page 13, Paragraph 8; Page 5, Paragraphs 3-7; Page 8, Paragraphs 1-2; Page 9, Paragraph 7 through Page 10, Paragraph 1).
Claim 2: Tsuchida, Brice and Uki disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein:
the first receiving code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive, from the display device, user information of the user using the container, who is photographed by the display device (Tsuchida - Page 3, paragraphs 1-3: receiving a first image of a customer in a store from a built in camera on digital signage that displays advertisements, wherein the image is used to identify the customer and customer attributes as well as tracking results such as product contact after seeing the advertisement and whether or not the contacted product is purchased); and
the determination code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to store information on the purchased product and the user information into a database, with being associated with each other, when determining that the user using the container has purchased the product (Tsuchida – Page 6, Paragraphs 2-4 and Page 7, Paragraph 4 through Page 8, Paragraph 2: storing identification information of the customer, attributes of the customer, and product contact information associated with customer, and purchase of contacted products information; Page 11, Paragraph 5 through Page 12, Paragraph 5: determining based on the tracking results that the customer watched the advertisement for a product, interacted with the product, and then purchased the product that was advertised and interacted with; Page 9, Paragraph 4: the deep neural network identifies images or users across cameras and assigns a global ID to each customer).
Claim 3: Tsuchida, Brice, and Uki disclose the information processing device according to claim 2, further comprising output code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to output outputs statistical data on the user information of the user who purchased the product, based on the information on the product and the user information stored in the database. (Tsuchida – Page 6, Paragraphs 4: outputting statistical information of the tracking results of customer behavior such as presence/absence of contact with the customers and presence/absence of purchase of contacted products; Page 10, Paragraph 2 through Page 11, Paragraph 1 and Page 11, Paragraph 5 which ends on Page 12: the analysis results can be output to store managers or advertiser);
Claim 5: Tsuchida, Brice, and Uki disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein:
the first receiving code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive, from the display device, the user information of the user using the container, taken by the display device (Tsuchida - Page 3, paragraphs 1-3: receiving a first image of a customer in a store from a built in camera on digital signage that displays advertisements, wherein the image is used to identify the customer and customer attributes as well as tracking results such as product contact after seeing the advertisement and whether or not the contacted product is purchased); and
the information processing device further comprising:
selection code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to select an advertisement to be displayed on the display device based on the user information; and instructing, by the selection section of the information processing device, the display device to display the advertisement. (Tsuchida - Page 12, Paragraph 4; and Page 13, Paragraph 3: an advertisement is selected and displayed that matches the customer and/or customers in front of the signage and their attributes)
Claim 6: Tsuchida, Brice, and Uki disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein:
the first receiving code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive the image of the face of the user using the container, taken by the display device, in addition to the first identification information (Tsuchida - Page 3, paragraphs 1-3: receiving a first image of a customer in a store from a built in camera on digital signage that displays advertisements, wherein the image is used to identify the customer and customer attributes as well as tracking results such as product contact after seeing the advertisement and whether or not the contacted product is purchased; Page 7, Paragraph 1: the image includes a face); and
the determination code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive the user’s face image from the display device (Tsuchida – Page 7, Paragraphs 1-4: detecting the user’s face image from the image received from the display and assigning a tracking ID to each face) and
determines that the user who viewed the advertisement purchased the product 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 (Tsuchida – Page 11, Paragraph 5 through Page 12, Paragraph 5: determining based on the tracking results that the customer watched the advertisement for a product, interacted with the product, and then purchased the product that was advertised and interacted with; Page 9, Paragraph 4: the deep neural network identifies images or users across camera sand assigns a global ID to each customer).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida (JP2021176061A) in view of Brice et al (PGPUB: 2006/0293968) in view of Uki (JP2010049483A) in further view of Godoi et al. (PGPUB: 2022/0130216).
Claim 4: Tsuchida, Brice, and Uki disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein:
the first receiving code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive, from the display device, information about the image of the user using the container, the image being taken by the display device (Tsuchida - Page 3, paragraphs 1-3: receiving a first image of a customer in a store from a built in camera on digital signage that displays advertisements, wherein the image is used to identify the customer and customer attributes as well as tracking results such as product contact after seeing the advertisement and whether or not the contacted product is purchased); and
the information processing device further comprising:
acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire an identifier used by the user on an online service platform based on the information about the user’s image.
Tsuchida, Brice and Uki, as combined, disclose acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire an identifier for the user from a site by using information about the user’s image in at least Tsuchida: Page 7, Paragraphs 1-4 (detecting the user’s face image from the image received from the display and assigning a tracking ID to each face); and Page 9, Paragraph 4 (the deep neural network identifies images or users across cameras and assigns a global ID to each customer).
However, the site that performs the facial recognition and assigning of IDs to each customer from which the IDs are acquired appears to be operated by the system itself rather than a third-party site. Thus, Tsuchida, Brice and Uki, as combined, do not disclose acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire an identifier used by the user on an online service platform based on the information about the user’s images.
The analogous art of Godoi discloses that it is well-known to use third-party online service providers to perform facial recognition for consumer identification in at least paragraph 47.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Tsuchida, Brice, and Uki such that the consumer identification using facial recognition was performed by a third-party service provider as disclosed by Godoi.
The rational for doing so is that it merely requires the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida (JP2021176061A) in view of Brice et al (PGPUB: 2006/0293968) in view of Uki (JP2010049483A) in further view of Johnson (PGPUB: 2005/0187819).
Claim 7: Tsuchida, Brice and Uki disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein: the first receiving code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive, by the first receiver, an advertisement identifier indicating the advertisement displayed on the display device, in addition to the first identification information; and the determination code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine that the user using the container has viewed the advertisement corresponding to the advertisement identifier and purchased the product, when the product information received from the terminal corresponds to the advertisement displayed on the display device indicated by the advertisement identifier.
Tsuchida, Brice and Uki, as combined, discloses receiving, by the first receiver, the first identification information; determining, by the determination section, that the user using the container has viewed the advertisement and purchased the product, when the product information received from the terminal corresponds to the advertisement displayed on the display device; and advertisers access an application to setup up each advertising content and display conditions for the advertisement, as well as, obtain statistical information regarding customer behavior after having viewed the advertisement in at least Tsuchida: Page 6, Paragraphs 2-4 and Page 7, Paragraph 4 through Page 8, Paragraph 2; and Page 11, Paragraph 5 through Page 12, Paragraph 5.
While Tsuchida, Brice, and Uki, as combined, must inherently be able to identify the specific advertisement in some manner in order to determining, by the determination section, that the user using the container has viewed the advertisement and purchased the product, when the product information received from the terminal corresponds to the advertisement displayed on the display device, Tsuchida, Brice, and Uki, as combined, do not disclose that an advertisement identifier is used in this process.
However, the analogous art of Johnson discloses that is well-known to receive, by the first receiver, an advertisement identifier indicating the advertisement displayed on the display device, in addition to the first identification information; and determining, by the determination section, that the user using the container has viewed the advertisement corresponding to the advertisement identifier and purchased the product, when the product information received from the terminal corresponds to the advertisement displayed on the display device indicated by the advertisement identifier in at least paragraphs 20-23, 28,78, 80 and 82.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Tsuchida, Brice, and Uki, to include advertisement identifiers indicating the advertisement displayed and to use said identifiers when making the determination as disclosed by Johnson.
The rational for doing so, is that it would be obvious to try. The invention of Tsuchida, Brice, and Uki must inherently have some way to associated a specific advertisement for a specific product with a product purchase in order to determine that the user using the container has viewed the advertisement and purchased the product, when the product information received from the terminal corresponds to the advertisement displayed on the display device. There are a limited number of predictable ways in which one might determine be able to make such a determination and using an advertisement identifier is one such predictable way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant arguments with regard to the amendment to claim 1 overcoming the 35 USC 101 rejection are moot, as the claim amendment has overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-7. Thus, the rejection has been withdrawn.
The applicant did not present any arguments with regards to independent claims 8-9. The examiner notes that the scope of claim 8 is directed to a method performed by a processor of an information processing device. Thus, the scope of claim 8 is limited to the steps of the method that are actually performed by the processor of the information processing device. The scope of claim 9 is directed towards a computer program product executed by a processor of an information processing device. Thus, the scope of claim 9 is limited to the steps of the computer program product that are actually performed by the processor of the information processing device. As such, the scope of both claims 8 and 9 do not include the display device, container, terminal, and product. Since, these elements are outside the scope of the claims, they cannot be considered “additional elements” of the claimed invention and, as such, have been included as part of the abstract idea. This results in claims 8-9 merely applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and insufficient to be considered significantly more under Step 2b. As such, the amendment to claims 8-9 fail to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant’s arguments with regard to the 35 USC 103 rejections are moot. The applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly added claim language that the newly added prior art of Brice is cited as disclosing. As such, the rejections have been maintained.
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.
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