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 .
Status of the Application
This non-final rejection is in response to the RCE filed on 10/16/2025. Claims 1, 6-9 and 14 have been amended. Claim 19 has been added. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, independent claim 9 recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
receive each of product service information and sales condition information defining a sales condition of the product service information including price information, the received information being in mutually different formats;
identify differences among the formats of the sales condition information received;
convert a plurality of pieces of the sales condition information into a single format, based on information indicating a data structure of the sales condition information corresponding to each of the information providing sources by applying a conversion algorithm that transforms the different formats into a unified format, using predetermined formulas or contextual analysis;
determine, based on user information, a first price and a second price in the single format, each determined for a corresponding user according to predetermined different calculation methods based on respective user information;
obtain comparison results of the product service information; and
display, the first price to a first user and the second price to a second user together with the comparison results of the product service information based on user information stored in the user information storage unit.
As noted above, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the limitations describe a marketing activity of promoting price competition by gathering prices from different sources and displaying the prices in a common format to users based upon user information which falls within the certain methods of organizing human activities category of abstract ideas. Moreover, Examiner notes that the converting of sales condition information into a single format (e.g., a percent discount off) can be performed in the human mind or by a human with pen and paper and therefore this limitation also falls within the “mental processes” bucket of abstract ideas. Accordingly claim 9 recites an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 9 recites the additional limitations of:
[receiving price information] from a plurality external information providing sources;
[user information] stored in a user information storage unit; and
[display the first price, second price, and comparison results] in a manner that allows comparative reordering and presentation.
The additional limitations when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because each of the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Specifically, [receiving price information] from a plurality external information providing sources user information] stored in a user information storage unit are recited at a high level of generality receiving from a plurality of generic external information providing sources and accessing user information in a generic storage unit. At this level of generality, simply receiving information from generic external sources and accessing information in generic storage unit merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or, at most, or at most amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, [display the first price, second price, and comparison results] in a manner that allows comparative reordering and presentation is recited at a high level of generality and merely specifies that information is displayed in a manner that allows reordering and presentation. At this level of generality, simply displaying prices and comparison results in a manner that allows the information to be reordered and presented merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or merely utilizes a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, the same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception is a particular technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, [receiving price information] from a plurality external information providing sources was analyzed as extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. However, the receiving limitation is not significantly more because the courts have held that receiving and transmitting data over a network is not significantly more than the abstract idea when it is claimed in a merely generic matter (as it is here) per MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, a conclusion that the transmitting limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent system claims 1, 7, and 8 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 9. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1; the processor and non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 7; and the processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, first, second, and third terminal and server of communicably connected to the terminals of claim 8 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the components in independent claims 1, 7, and 8 merely provide an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 10-19 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 7-9 without significantly more. Specifically, Examiner notes that each of the additional limitations of dependent claims 2-6 and 10-19 only further limit the abstract or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 6/19/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claims
1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that:
Applicants believe that these limitations go far beyond human mental steps or routine marketing activity, because a human cannot feasibly parse and reconcile heterogeneous digital schemas from disparate systems in real-time. The claims solve a concrete technical problem: incompatibility among multiple external data formats of information providing sources and the need for real-time harmonization and user interface presentation. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to a fundamental economic principle or mental process, but rather to a computer-centric solution (remarks page 10).
The specification confirms this technical character. For example, paragraph [0060] describes how "the sales condition conversion means 103a changes the wholesale price "12,000 yen" and the commission "3,000 yen" to the list price "15,000 yen" and the discount rate "20%" to align the forms." While the Office Action views this as non-technical (Office Action, p. 6), the broader disclosure in paragraphs [0055]-[0070] makes clear that the claimed embodiment involves structured processing modules (e.g., sales condition conversion means 103a, transaction information processing means 104a) to reconcile incompatible input schemas into a standardized dataset that can be interactively compared and displayed. This is a technical interoperability solution, not a business method (remarks page 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Examiner notes that the claims do not recite that the method is performed in real time. Regardless, Examiner notes that the term “data structures” (as recited in the claims) and the term digital schemas are not found in Applicant’s published specification. The specification does disclose transformation (i.e., harmonization) of format but the transformation is not technical in nature. Specifically, Examiner notes that paragraph [0082] of Applicant’s published specification recites an example of “the sales condition conversion means 103 a changes the wholesale price “12,000 yen” and the commission “3,000 yen” to the list price “15,000 yen” and the discount rate “20%” to align the forms.” This is not a technical conversion between computing data structures but a conversion between forms of representing a discount which is part of the abstract idea. With respect to Applicant’s argument that the specification recites structured processing modules to reconcile incompatible input schemas into a standardized dataset that can be interactively compared and displayed, Applicant’s published specification paragraph [0010] recites that “a sales processing program for causing a computer to function as” the various means/modules recited by Applicant. At this level of generality, this amounts to no more than generic software on a generic computer to performed the claimed method steps (e.g., converting between different formats of displaying discounts such as a numerical commission v. a percent discount). Therefore the conversion/harmonization between formats, even if performed by a computer, at most generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Put another way, a human being could convert/harmonize the various formats on pen and paper. At most, the claims are simply automating a conversion process that can be performed mentally.
Second Applicant argues that:
Furthermore, the claimed embodiment recites more than generic "storage" of user information. The claims specifically require "determine, based on user information stored in a user information storage unit, a first price and a second price in the single format, each determined for a corresponding user according to predetermined different calculation methods based on respective user information", and further "display, the first price to a first user and the second price to a second user together with the comparison results of the product service information, in a manner that allows comparative reordering and presentation, based on user information stored in the user information storage unit." These recitations go beyond generic linking of an abstract idea to a computer environment, as they specify functional integration of stored user information into dynamic determination and comparative display, enabling user specific interactive displays that would not be possible absent computer implementation.” (remarks pages 10-11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and replies that with respect to the functional integration of the stored user information, the claims are at most accessing information stored in a generic unit. At this level of generality, simply specifying that information is accessed from a storage unit merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or merely utilizing a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. With respect to “dynamic determination and comparative display, enabling user specific interactive displays” the claims merely recite [display the first price, second price, and comparison results] in a manner that allows comparative reordering and presentation which is recited at a high level of generality and merely specifies that information is displayed in a manner that allows reordering and presentation. At this level of generality, simply displaying prices and comparison results in a manner that allows the information to be reordered and presented merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or merely utilizes a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., a generic computer with a generic user interface to display information).
Third, Applicant argues that “First, claim 9 recites "conversion algorithm" based on data structures. Specifically, the recited "conversion algorithm" harmonizes incompatible input formats from multiple external providers using predetermined formulas and contextual analysis. This is a technical solution to a problem unique to distributed computer systems, analogous to the improvements recognized in Enfish (improved data structure) and DDR Holdings (website integration) (remarks page 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the term “algorithm” is not found in Applicant’s specification. However, the specification paragraph [0082] does recite that “the change may be performed using a calculation formula prepared in advance between the forms, or may be performed by analyzing the context.” Examiner notes that using a generic formula to convert between forms (e.g., converting a wholesale price of 12000 yen and 3000 commission to a list price of 15000 with a 20% discount) is a simply mathematical calculation that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Further, performing such a calculation is part of the abstract idea of gathering prices from different sources and displaying the prices in a common format. There is simply no technical solution recited in the claims or specification that amounts to an improvement to the computer or another technology which is analogous to the improvements in Enfish or DDR holdings.
Fourth, Applicant argues that the claimed embodiment provides dynamic, comparative reordering and presentation, not just display of information, but an interactive, reconfigurable comparative presentation based on user-specific information. This represents an improvement in computer human
Interaction (remarks page 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and replies that the claims merely recite [display the first price, second price, and comparison results] in a manner that allows comparative reordering and presentation which is recited at a high level of generality and merely specifies that information is displayed in a manner that allows reordering and presentation. At this level of generality, simply displaying prices and comparison results in a manner that allows the information to be reordered and presented merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or merely utilizes a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., a generic computer with a generic user interface to display information). There is no technical improvement to the graphical user interface recited in the claim.
Fifth, Applicant argues that claimed embodiment applies different predetermined calculation methods for different users, driving dynamically generated, tailored outputs. This structured, automated
functionality cannot be reduced to mental processes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applying different calculation methods to different users is a process that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20150248863 (“Ishikawa”) teaches displaying different commodity sales prices depending on the customer status
US Patent Application Publication Number 20210174269 (“Lee”) converting discount prices into standard notation
US Patent Application Publication Number 20220318836 (“Jeong”) teaches differentiated price information based on product membership discounts
US Patent Application Publication Number 20190149623 (“MCPHEE”) teaches differentiated price information based on product membership discounts
US Patent Application Publication Number 20170124603 (“Olson”) teaches a display mode that can present price promotions as they become available in real-time.
However, the prior art fails to teach each and every limitation as claimed, and would involve hindsight reasoning to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims are considered allowable over the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Ilana Spar 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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622