1/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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 December 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The amendment received on 29 December 2025 has been acknowledged and entered.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, and 17 have been amended. No new claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed 29 December 2025, with respect to the objection to claims 11, and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objection to claims 1, 11, and 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 8-9) that the Office Action rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as reciting an abstract idea without significantly more… Applicant respectfully maintains that the claims are patent-eligible, as they are not directed to an abstract idea. At minimum, Applicant submits that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and contain significantly more than a judicial exception.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that first, associating each of the plurality of products with a product code, an expiration date of each product, and an markdown code comprising a markdown code, wherein the markdown code is at least one of a symbol, a sign, a mark and a pattern; set/setting/setting the markdown code for each of the plurality of products, wherein the markdown code is based at least on the expiration date of each of the plurality of products, set/setting/setting price reduction information for each of the products, the price reduction information being associated with the time limit information related to the expiration date, and display/display/display each markdown code set for each of the plurality of products in association with the price reduction information may be interpreted as at least Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components) and/or Commercial Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). The generic computer components, such as, one or more display devices, product stock database, and server does not take the claim out of the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping. Secondly, the current amendment does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application by improving the overall performance of the system. Instead, it appears a business solution to a business problem is being implemented by use of the generic computer components. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, page 9) that The Office Action alleges that the "computer components" of the claims "are recited at a high level of generality" and are merely invoked as a "tool" to perform the alleged abstract idea.. The Action further asserts that each limitation is "no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component." Applicant respectfully disagrees. As amended, the claims are directed to information processing devices, methods and apparatus. The claims address a specific problem associated with conventional systems. For example, as set forth at paragraph 3 of the specification, conventional systems require works to visually check time limits, such as a best-before date, of each product and then manually attach markdown labels. The claims recite a specific solution to this problem that includes, among other features:
setting a markdown code for each of a plurality of products, wherein the markdown code is based at least on the expiration date of each of the plurality of products
attaching a label to each of the plurality of products, the label being printed with the markdown code
causing an electronic shelf label to display a plurality of markdown codes for each of the plurality of products associated with the same product information;
setting a current price associated with each markdown code by the server and causing the current price to be displayed on the electronic shelf label
Thus, the claims does not simply recite a result at a high level of generality, but rather specifies in detail how the solution is achieved. As discussed further below, these features contrast with conventional systems that rely on individual product tags or barcode labels that must be read by a consumer. Further, the combination of features promote efficiency and achieve the practical advantage of avoiding the need for individual products to be re-labeled periodically. For at least this reason, Applicant submits that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical solution, and should be found patent-eligible.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees an notes that Applicant has not shown a technical improvement. It appears that the improvement is being done to abstract idea, and not to the performance of the system, server, processor, or display devices. For instance, there is no teaching in the specification on how the invention improves a technology nor establishes a clear nexus between the claim language and the improvement to technology where both the claims and the specification support the asserted technical improvement. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are patent ineligible.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that determining and displaying product pricing does not provide a technical improvement to a technology or technical field. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., “an information processing system,” “a display device,” “a processor,” “a database,” and “a display”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For instance, the markdown codes do not improve the functioning of the system, processor, database, and display device. Therefore, the Examiner suggests that Applicant provide the mechanism that is actually providing the technical improvement.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, page 14) that the sales system of Tak uses a conventional barcode including basic data of a product, which is primarily printed and attached to a product, and a time stamp sub barcode (i.e. extended barcode), which is additionally printed and attached to the product (see 0080-0081, 0087). By scanning the extended barcode, a varied price of the product depending on the manufacturing date, is displayed on a POS terminal (see 0107, 0112). In the sales system of Tak, the price of a product is determined based solely on the extended barcode printed and attached to the product. Tak's barcode, however, is not a "markdown code" as recited in the claims. For example, Tak does not disclose set the markdown code for each of the plurality of products wherein each product has a label printed with the markdown code and a plurality of markdown codes for each of the plurality of products associated with the same product information is displayed.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Tak discloses in [0087] that a discounted price code indicated in the extended bar code 415 can be read when calculating the price of a product being purchased at a counter 450 to apply a discounted rate on the basis of time elapsed from manufacture date/hour for exact calculation. Therefore, the Examiner in unpersuaded by Applicant’s argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10, 13-16, and 18 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Claims 11, 17, and 19 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Claims 12 and 20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, Claims 1-17 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent claims 1, 11, and 12 substantially recite:
associating/associating/associating each of the plurality of products with a product code, an expiration date of each product, and an markdown code comprising a markdown code, wherein the markdown code is at least one of a symbol, a sign, a mark and a pattern; and
set/setting/setting the markdown code for each of the plurality of products, wherein the markdown code is based at least on the expiration date of each of the plurality of products,
set/setting/setting price reduction information for each of the products, the price reduction information being associated with the time limit information related to the expiration date[[;]], and
display/display/display each markdown code set for each of the plurality of products in association with the price reduction information, wherein a label is attached to each of the plurality of products, the label being printed with the markdown code and cause the shelf label to display a plurality of markdown codes for each of the plurality of products associated with the same product information; and wherein a current price associated with each markdown code is set and caused to be displayed on the shelf label. These processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and/or Commercial Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements: “an information processing system,” “one or more display devices,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a product stock database,” “a server,” and “a processor”; claim 11 recites the additional elements: “an information processing system,” “one or more display devices,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a product stock database,” and “a server”; and claim 12 recites the additional elements: “an information processing system,” “one or more display devices,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a product stock database,” “a server,” “a non-transitory storage medium,” and “a program” to perform the “associating/associating/associating,” “set/setting/setting,” “set/setting/setting,” and “display/display/display” steps. The claimed computer components in the steps of claims 1, 11, and 12, respectively, are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., “an information processing system,” “one or more display devices,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a product stock database,” “a server,” and “a processor” in claim 1; “an information processing system,” “one or more display devices,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a product stock database,” and “a server” in claim 11; and “an information processing system,” “one or more display devices,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a product stock database,” “a server,” “a non-transitory storage medium,” and “a program” in claim 12) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (i.e., “an information processing system,” “one or more display devices,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a product stock database,” “a server,” and “a processor” in claim 1; “an information processing system,” “one or more display devices,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a product stock database,” and “a server” in claim 11; and “an information processing system,” “one or more display devices,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a product stock database,” “a server,” “a non-transitory storage medium,” and “a program” in claim 12). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component as recited above. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the (“information processing system,” “one or more display devices,” “electronic shelf label,” “product stock database,” “server,” and “processor” in claim 1; “information processing system,” “one or more display devices,” “electronic shelf label,” “product stock database,” and “server” in claim 11; and “information processing system,” “one or more display devices,” “electronic shelf label,” “product stock database,” “server,” “non-transitory storage medium,” and “program” in claim 12 to perform the “associating/associating/associating,” “set/setting/setting,” “set/setting/setting,” and “display/display/display” steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are patent ineligible.
As per dependent claim 2, the recitations, “set a date markdown code with the date…” and “set a date markdown code with the date and a time markdown code…” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 3, the recitation, “set the price reduction information for the product…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 4, the recitation, “set the price reduction information to be associated with the products…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 5 and 17, the recitation, “periodically update the current price associated with each markdown code” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
.the label is attached to each product and is printed with the markdown code. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1 and 11, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 6, the recitation, “set the price reduction rate or a price reduction extent…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 7, the recitation, “display information concerning the product…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitation of “a second display device” is another computer component recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 8, the recitations, “associate the markdown code set…”; and “display information concerning the product” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitation of “a second display device” is another computer component recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 9, the recitations, “communicate with a user…”; and “display information concerning the product…” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitation of “a user terminal” is another computer component recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 10, the recitations, “communicate with a user…”; “acquires, as product stock information of a user…”; and “provides the user.. with the product stock information…” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitation of “a user terminal” is another computer component recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 13, the recitation, “set the price reduction information for the product…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 14, the recitation, “set the price reduction information to be associated with the products…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 15, the recitation, “set the price reduction rate or a price reduction extent…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 16, the recitation, “set the price reduction rate or a price reduction extent…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 13-20 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 2-10 and 13-20, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omer et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0081980 A1) in view of Tak (US PG Pub. 2012/0095823 A1) and Teramoto (US PG Pub. 2022/0292446 A1).
As per claims 1, 11 and 12, Omer et al. discloses an information processing system, method, and a non-transitory storage medium (Omer et al.:[0084] comprising:
one or more display devices (Omer et al.: FIG. 1 [130][131]), each display device comprising an electronic shelf label disposed in proximity to a plurality of products associated with the same product information and having different expiration dates (Omer et al.: [0048] In general, each of the one or more price-calculation factors 120 include: a first expiration date of the good 108, a second expiration date of the good 108, the quantity of a particular good 108 in the store 110) {The Examiner interprets the quantity of a particular good in a store to mean that there are a plurality of products associated with the same product information}; and (Omer et al.: [0044] As described herein, any of these displays (e.g., the electronic shelf label 106 associated with the good 108, the display 130, and/or the screen affixed to the entire width of the shelf associated with the good 108) may be used by retailers for displaying product pricing. The product pricing are automatically updated whenever a price is changed from a central control server, such as the pricing server 112. Typically, electronic display modules are attached to the front edge of retail shelving).
a product stock database associating each of the plurality of products with a product code, an expiration date of each product, and an identifier Omer et al.: [0012] Next, the dynamic pricing engine configured to: query, dynamically and in real-time, the database to identify, from the readable identification tag, the good and the information associated with the good); (Omer et al.: [0009] At least one server includes a memory, a processor, a database, and a dynamic pricing engine… The database is configured to store information associated with the good); and (Omer et al.: [0010] Specifically, the information includes one or more price-calculation factors associated with a shelf-state of the good and one or more price-calculation factors associated with a future stock of the good. These factors may include: at least one expiration date of the good, a quantity of similar goods, a sale strength of a brand of goods, a catalog price listed for the good, a predetermined minimum price allowed for the good, a demographic area in which the good is sold, a day of the week in which the good is sold, an hour of the day in which the good is sold, a demand curve for the good, a system model for the good, whether the good is discounted, whether the good is packaged, whether the good has any competitors, the last price that was charged for the good, whether there is an active advertising campaign for the good, or a price history of the good, among others)
a server in communication with the one or more display devices, the server having a processor (Omer et al.: [0009][0077]; FIG. 1 [114][138]) configured to:
set price reduction information for each of the products, the price reduction information being associated with the time limit information related to the expiration date (Omer et al.: [0041] As depicted, the database 150 of the pricing server 112 may store information 118 associated with a good 108 offered for sale in the store 110 (such as a grocery store), as well as historical data 122. In some examples, the information 118 of the database 150 may include a good's catalog or SKU number, a manufacturer's suggested expiration date of the good 108, a “best used before” date of the good 108, a sell-by date, any date indicator of product freshness, one or more price-calculation factors 120 associated with a shelf-state of the good 108, one or more price-calculation factors 120 associated with a future stock of the good 108, a name of the good 108, a location of the good 108, and/or any other relevant information. It should be appreciated that the one or more price-calculation factors 120 of the database 150 may be updated dynamically and in real-time, also see [0047]);
wherein a label is attached to each of the plurality of products (Omer et al: Abstract; [0011], the readable identification tag affixed to the good during a time period);
wherein a current price (Omer et al.: [0044] that any of these displays (e.g., the electronic shelf label 106 associated with the good 108, the display 130, and/or the screen affixed to the entire width of the shelf associated with the good 108) may be used by retailers for displaying product pricing. The product pricing are automatically updated whenever a price is changed from a central control server, such as the pricing server 112. Typically, electronic display modules are attached to the front edge of retail shelving).
Omer et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Tak discloses:
a product stock database associating each of the plurality of products with a product code, an expiration date of each product, and an identifier comprising a markdown code, wherein the markdown code is at least one of a symbol, a sign, a mark and a pattern (Omer et al.: [0087],[0150] Referring to FIG. 3, manufacture date and time of data relating to a manufacture date or a valid period which can be easily spotted visually are additionally recorded on products according to the present invention so as to be read continuously from the back side of a conventional bar code, or an extended bar code 415 on which separate time data are recorded is added to the products, which are placed on a display stand 440. The display stand 440 includes a first display 420 on which basic data relating to kinds and prices of articles are displayed, and a second display 430 on which discounted prices are displayed, thereby allowing customers to select discounted products where the discounted prices are determined by a program and provided from a POS server 410 to the second display 430 of the display stand 440. However, in general, such discounted prices can be included in the extended bar code 415, and thus a discounted price code indicated in the extended bar code 415 can be read when calculating the price of a product being purchased at a counter 450 to apply a discounted rate on the basis of time elapsed from manufacture date/hour for exact calculation. In such a case, data provided to the second display 430 are previously programmed into the POS server 410 and transmitted to the display stand 440 and counter 450, also see FIG. 8),
set the markdown code for each of the plurality of products, wherein the markdown code is based at least on the expiration date of each of the plurality of products (Tak: [0107] When a TSB 510 (of FIG. 9) including predetermined valid period and identifier is recognized and entered into the bar code scanner 530, a price varied according to the time elapsed from manufacture date/hour to time of sale, the valid period, and the identifier is calculated by referring the present time entered from the RTC (S1806) functioning as (S1804) an operator for calculating a valid period. In other words, the time elapsed from the valid period is calculated, a dynamic price is applied to an identical product, sales amount and the amount of stocks according to the time elapsed from the valid period can be determined using a database by calculating an expiration time for each item) also see [0125], and
cause the one or more display devices to display each markdown code set by the processor for each of the plurality of products in association with the price reduction information (Tak: FIGS. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 12; [0112] In the product employing a TSB, a dynamic price is automatically calculated and displayed at the POS terminal by using the dynamic sales system according to the time elapsed from the manufacture date/hour… [0113] The dynamic price in the POS terminal 540 is duplicated, or a receiving portion 1214 receives data relating to a product through a database manager (DBM) 1212 through a RF and/or a wire (LAN/PLC) from the POS server 1210. The present price of the product is indicated on the dynamic price display unit 580 according to data such as a discount rate for the product received by the receiving portion 1214 and according to the contents of a bar code of the product recognized by the bar code scanner 530 such that a customer can select a desired product). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omer et al. to markdown codes associated with expiration dates of products as taught by Tak in order to provide a bar code for indicating the valid period in order to implement the sales method for varying a product's price according to the expiration date of the product (Tak: [0019]).
Omer et al. further discloses the electronic shelf label displays in [0044] that any of these displays (e.g., the electronic shelf label 106 associated with the good 108, the display 130, and/or the screen affixed to the entire width of the shelf associated with the good 108) may be used by retailers for displaying product pricing. The product pricing are automatically updated whenever a price is changed from a central control server, such as the pricing server 112. Typically, electronic display modules are attached to the front edge of retail shelving.
Omer et al. in view of Tak dos not further disclose, however, Teramoto discloses
the label being printed with the markdown code and the server is configured to cause the (Teramoto: [0068] The reading processing unit 212 sequentially reads two-dimensional codes Cr that are respectively provided for the columns in the product shelf while the mobile robot 2 is moving (traveling) in front of the product shelf, and every time the reading processing unit 212 acquires two-dimensional code information (a product group ID, product IDs, and displayed prices) embedded in a two-dimensional code Cr, the output processing unit 213 outputs the two-dimensional code information to the product management device 1); and (Teramoto: [0092] Upon receiving the display medium Ps1, the clerk replaces price tags Mt of regular prices of the products A33 and A34, which are attached to the product shelf T1, with the price tags Mt of the discount prices included in the display medium Ps1, and replaces a two-dimensional code C3 attached to a shelf in the second row with the two-dimensional code C3 included in the display medium Ps1. Likewise, the clerk replaces a price tag Mt of the product A45 and a two-dimensional code C4, and replaces a price tag Mt of the product A61 and a two-dimensional code C6. FIGS. 4 and 7 show a state where the price tags Mt of the discount prices and the two-dimensional codes Cr are attached); and (Teramoto: [0089] Here, when making a bargain sale such as a discount service for specific products, the manager changes the registered prices and registers the discount information and the applicable period in the product information D1. Also, the manager prints price tags Mt that show reduced registered prices (discount prices) of the specific products and two-dimensional codes Cr that include information (two-dimensional code information) of product group IDs of product groups that include the specific products, product IDs of products that are included in the product groups, and registered prices of the products. FIG. 5 shows product information D1 after products A33, A34, A45, and A61, which are the specific products, are discounted. Each of the discount prices is an example of a special price in one or more embodiments).also see FIGS. 6, 8. And 10)[0063], [0009],[0063]; ; and
wherein a current price associated with each markdown code is set by the server and caused to be displayed on the (Teramoto: [0092],[0095]) Upon receiving the display medium Ps1, the clerk replaces price tags Mt of regular prices of the products A33 and A34, which are attached to the product shelf T1, with the price tags Mt of the discount prices included in the display medium Ps1, and replaces a two-dimensional code C3 attached to a shelf in the second row with the two-dimensional code C3 included in the display medium Ps1. Likewise, the clerk replaces a price tag Mt of the product A45 and a two-dimensional code C4, and replaces a price tag Mt of the product A61 and a two-dimensional code C6. FIGS. 4 and 7 show a state where the price tags Mt of the discount prices and the two-dimensional codes Cr are attached); and (Teramoto: [0011] The product management system may be configured such that, in a case where a selling price of a specific product included in the product group is set to a special price that is different from a regular price, the information-readable medium further includes information of an applicable period during which the special price is applicable); also see [0075]). Teramoto does not explicitly disclose an electronic display shelf. However, Omer et al. discloses an electronic display shelf in [0044]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omer et al. in view of Tak’s markdown codes associated with expiration dates to include markdown codes of items associated with a product group as taught by Teramoto to acquire correct selling prices (registered prices) associated with the plurality of products, based on the product group as taught by Teramoto in order to arrange a plurality of products in a predetermined range or position on a shelf (Teramoto: [0066]).
As per claim 3, Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. Omer et al. further discloses, wherein:
the processor is configured to set the price reduction information for the product, depending on a stock of the product. (Omer et al.: [0047] It should be appreciated that the one or more price-calculation factors 120 assigned to the good 108 may be used to determine a first price 132 of the good 108 and/or a second price 134 of the good 108. It should be appreciated that the first price 132 and the second price 134 of the good 108 may be reduced pricing for the good 108 or a calculated markdown price for the good 108); and
(Omer et al.: [0048] In examples, each factor of the one or more price-calculation factors 120 may include: price-calculation factors associated with the shelf-state of the good 108 and price-calculation factors associated with the future stock of the good 108. In general, each of the one or more price-calculation factors 120 include: a first expiration date of the good 108, a second expiration date of the good 108, the quantity of a particular good 108 in the store 110, a quantity of similar items from the same or a different seller, a seller's inventory, a sale strength of a brand associated with the good 108, a catalog price listed for the good 108, a predetermined minimum price allowed for the good 108, a demographic area in which the good 108 is sold, a day of the week in which the good 108 is sold, any particularly significant days of sale for the good 108 (such as, e.g., holidays, days in which major events are taking place, etc.), an hour of the day in which the good 108 is sold, a stock protection of the good 108, a demand curve for the good 108, a system model for each good 108, sale elasticity factors for the good 108, whether certain goods are otherwise already discounted, whether the good 108 is packaged (and/or what type of packaging), the packaged quantity of the good 108, whether the good 108 has any competitors, the last price that was charged for the good 108, any rounding rules applicable for the good 108, whether there is an active advertising campaign for the good 108, the shelf state for the good 108, the price history of the good 108, and/or any other relevant price-calculation factors. It should be appreciated that the system described learns and updates with the demand curve for the good 108).
As per claims 5 and 17, Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto discloses the information processing system and method according to claims 1 and 11, respectively. Omer et al. further discloses, wherein:
the server is configured to periodically update the current price associated with each markdown code (Teramoto: [0092],[0095]) Upon receiving the display medium Ps1, the clerk replaces price tags Mt of regular prices of the products A33 and A34, which are attached to the product shelf T1, with the price tags Mt of the discount prices included in the display medium Ps1, and replaces a two-dimensional code C3 attached to a shelf in the second row with the two-dimensional code C3 included in the display medium Ps1. Likewise, the clerk replaces a price tag Mt of the product A45 and a two-dimensional code C4, and replaces a price tag Mt of the product A61 and a two-dimensional code C6. FIGS. 4 and 7 show a state where the price tags Mt of the discount prices and the two-dimensional codes Cr are attached); and (Teramoto: [0011]The product management system may be configured such that, in a case where a selling price of a specific product included in the product group is set to a special price that is different from a regular price, the information-readable medium further includes information of an applicable period during which the special price is applicable); also see [0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omer et al. in view of Tak’s markdown codes associated with expiration dates to include updating prices associated with markdown codes of items as taught by Teramoto to acquire correct selling prices (registered prices) associated with the plurality of products as taught by Teramoto in order to provide the buyer an incentive to purchase the item since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 7, Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. Omer et al. further discloses wherein:
when item information indicating an item is selected by operation of a user, the processor is configured to cause a second display device to display information concerning the product, associating, for the product related to the item information, the identifier set by the processor with the price reduction information set by the processor (Omer et al.: [0058] It should further be appreciated that different displays may also display different information. One or more of these expiration dates may be saved in various locations throughout the supply chain. Moreover, one or more of these displays may depict wording along with the pricing and the expiration dates of the good 108. For example, the display 130 associated with the POS terminal 146 may display the wording “You have saved $10 today,” to portray to the customer 142 the amount of money saved during the transaction); and (Omer et al.: [0069] Next, the process step 158 is followed by a process step 160 that includes: transmitting, by the pricing server 112, at least one calculated price of the good 108 (based on the expiration date of the good 108) to a system managing one or more displays 130 in real-time such that the pricing per good 108 that is transmitted to the POS is aligned with the prices shown on the displays 130 for the same good 108. Such system may include a display server. The display may include: the electronic shelf label 106, a screen affixed to an entire width of a shelf in the store 110, the display 131 of the computing device 136, a sticker, and/or the display 130 associated with the POS terminal 146. The pricing server 112 may also transmit a non-discounted price of the good 108 and/or other pricing based on the expiration date of the good 108 to the system, as discussed herein. The process of transmitting these prices to the display occurs dynamically and in real-time or according to the store's 110 preferences. In other examples, the display of the pricing for the good 108 may occur in near-real time, may be triggered in response to an event, or may be scheduled by the store 110. A process step 162 may follow the process step 160 to end the method of FIG. 3).
As per claim 9, Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. Omer et al. further discloses wherein:
the information processing device is configured to communicate with a user terminal, and when the user terminal acquires product information from the product, the processor is configured to cause the user terminal to display information concerning the product (Omer et al.: [0023],[0058],
associating, for the product associated with the product information, the identifier set by the processor with the price reduction information set by the processor (Omer et al.: [0058]).
Claims 2, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omer et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0081980 A1) in view of Tak (US PG Pub. 2012/0095823 A1) and Teramoto (US PG Pub. 2022/0292446 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Eglen et al. (US PG Pub. 2008/0059384 A1).
As per claim 2, Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. Omer et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Eglen et al. discloses, wherein:
when the time limit information indicates a date, the processor is configured to set a date identifier associated with the date, or
when the time limit information indicates a date and a time, the processor is configured to set a date identifier code associated with the date and a time identifier associated with the time (Eglen et al.: [0140] In one embodiment of the dynamic pricing system for dynamically pricing items for sale by a seller which items are available in a limited quantity (for which there is an inventory amount) are priced dynamically with the desired affect of selling off the inventory by an expiration time. The dynamic pricing system controls the rate of sale in order to sell out all items by a certain expiration time. In one embodiment, the system raises the price to slow the rate of sale and lowers it to speed the rate of sale); and [0142] The expiration time is a time by which a seller would like to liquid their inventory of an item available in a limited quantity. The expiration time may be any time picked by the seller or may be a time mandated by the type of item sold, e.g. the sell by date on a perishable item, or the date of an entertainment event or commercial travel. The expiration time may be a specific date on which it is desire that full occupancy be obtained in an accommodation. No limitation should be placed on the reason for which an expiration time is selected). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto to include setting a date and/or time for items as taught by Eglen et al. in order to price the items available so as to deplete the inventory of the item available by the expiration date (Eglen et al. [0144]).
As per claim 8, Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. Omer et al. in view of Tak does not explicitly disclose, however, Eglen et al. discloses wherein:
for the product whose price reduction rate is set depending on a priority for a selling desire, the processor is configured to associate the identifier set by the processor with the price reduction information set by the processor second setting unit, and causes a second display device to display information concerning the product (Eglen et al.: [0140] In one embodiment of the dynamic pricing system for dynamically pricing items for sale by a seller which items are available in a limited quantity (for which there is an inventory amount) are priced dynamically with the desired affect of selling off the inventory by an expiration time. The dynamic pricing system controls the rate of sale in order to sell out all items by a certain expiration time. In one embodiment, the system raises the price to slow the rate of sale and lowers it to speed the rate of sale); and [0142] The expiration time is a time by which a seller would like to liquid their inventory of an item available in a limited quantity. The expiration time may be any time picked by the seller or may be a time mandated by the type of item sold, e.g. the sell by date on a perishable item, or the date of an entertainment event or commercial travel. The expiration time may be a specific date on which it is desire that full occupancy be obtained in an accommodation. No limitation should be placed on the reason for which an expiration time is selected); and (Eglen et al.: [0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto to include setting priority as a date and/or time for items to be sold as taught by Eglen et al. in order to deplete the inventory of the item available by the set expiration date (Eglen et al. [0144]).
As per claim 13, Omer et al. in view of Tak in view of Teramoto and Eglen et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 2.
Omer et al. further discloses the processor is configured to set the price reduction information for the product, depending on a stock of the product (Omer et al.: [0047] It should be appreciated that the one or more price-calculation factors 120 assigned to the good 108 may be used to determine a first price 132 of the good 108 and/or a second price 134 of the good 108. It should be appreciated that the first price 132 and the second price 134 of the good 108 may be reduced pricing for the good 108 or a calculated markdown price for the good 108); and
(Omer et al.: [0048] In examples, each factor of the one or more price-calculation factors 120 may include: price-calculation factors associated with the shelf-state of the good 108 and price-calculation factors associated with the future stock of the good 108. In general, each of the one or more price-calculation factors 120 include: a first expiration date of the good 108, a second expiration date of the good 108, the quantity of a particular good 108 in the store 110, a quantity of similar items from the same or a different seller, a seller's inventory, a sale strength of a brand associated with the good 108, a catalog price listed for the good 108, a predetermined minimum price allowed for the good 108, a demographic area in which the good 108 is sold, a day of the week in which the good 108 is sold, any particularly significant days of sale for the good 108 (such as, e.g., holidays, days in which major events are taking place, etc.), an hour of the day in which the good 108 is sold, a stock protection of the good 108, a demand curve for the good 108, a system model for each good 108, sale elasticity factors for the good 108, whether certain goods are otherwise already discounted, whether the good 108 is packaged (and/or what type of packaging), the packaged quantity of the good 108, whether the good 108 has any competitors, the last price that was charged for the good 108, any rounding rules applicable for the good 108, whether there is an active advertising campaign for the good 108, the shelf state for the good 108, the price history of the good 108, and/or any other relevant price-calculation factors. It should be appreciated that the system described learns and updates with the demand curve for the good 108).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omer et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0081980 A1) in view of Tak (US PG Pub. 2012/0095823 A1) and Teramoto (US PG Pub. 2022/0292446 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Veit et al. (US PG Pub. 2005/0197897 A1).
As per claim 4, Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. Omer et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Veit et al. ‘133, discloses:
depending on types of the products, the processor is configured to individually set the price reduction information to be associated with the products with same markdown code [0058] In forming the correspondence between products or services and markdown profiles, the user can assign a markdown profile to entire groups or categories of products or services. For example, one markdown profile can be assigned to all products of a particular type (e.g., raincoats). The user can also more finely correspond specific markdown profiles to sub-groupings of those products. For example, the user could assign a different markdown profile to red raincoats than is assigned to blue raincoats and different than is assigned to the larger category of all raincoats. Indeed, a markdown profile may be specifically tailored for a particular product of a particular color and size. In an exemplary embodiment, if an individual product is not separately assigned a specific markdown profile, then the markdown profile for the relevant larger product category may be used for that product) also see [0055]). {The Examiner interprets the markdown profile to be equivalent to a markdown code}. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto to include providing the markdown code/profile for a group of the same products as taught by Veit et al. to make sure the entire group of seasonal merchandise is sold by a particular date since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omer et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0081980 A1) in view of Tak (US PG Pub. 2012/0095823 A1) and Teramoto (US PG Pub. 2022/0292446 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above and in further in view of Ziotopoulos et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0280960 A1).
As per claims 6 and 15, Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto discloses the information processing system according to claims 1 and 3, respectively. Omer et al. does not further disclose, however, Ziotopoulos et al. discloses wherein:
the processor is configured to set a price reduction rate or a price reduction extent of the product, for each combination of the products each with the markdown code (Ziotopoulos et al.: Abstract, [0064] Turning to FIG. 7, a methodology 700 that facilitates automatically negotiating discount offers with a customer is displayed, according to one aspect. At 702, product identification data is received from a customer. At 704, characteristic information about the identified product is retrieved from a retailer inventory database maintained by product retailer 104. According to one example, the characteristic information can include the expiration date of the product, the inventory level of the product, the scheduled delivery date for a shipment, manufacturer sales incentives, and/or the like. At 706, a discount offer is calculated. In one example, the discount offer is calculated based on the set of rules that were specified or selected by retailer 104. These rules may apply discounts based on a variety of factors including the period of time until a product's expiration date, product bundling, bulk purchases, overstocked products, and/or the like. At 708, the discount offer is transmitted to the customer. In one example, the discount offer is also transmitted to a point of sale for verification at checkout. In another example, the discount offer is transmitted with a digital signature that can be verified at checkout); also see [0048],[0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto to include price reductions/discounts for a combination of goods as taught by Ziotopoulot et al. to negotiate discount prices.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omer et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0081980 A1) in view of Tak (US PG Pub. 2012/0095823 A1) and Teramoto (US PG Pub. 2022/0292446 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sarkar (US PG Pub. 2016/0217447 A1).
As per claim 10, Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. Omer et al. further discloses, wherein:
the information processing device is configured to communicate with a user terminal (Omer et al.: FIG. 1), and the processor (Omer et al.: FIG. 1).
Omer et al. does not further disclose, however, Sarkar discloses:
is further configured to:
acquire, as product stock information of a user, product information and the time limit information acquired by the user terminal, when payment for the product is already completed by the user (Sarkar: [0062]-[0063], Consider another example where the price management system dynamically manages prices of perishable items in a retail store. The price management system receives sales information of the perishable items sold at the retail store. The received sales information comprises, for example, the original price of each of the perishable items, expiration dates of each of the perishable items, quantity of each of the perishable items processed at the billing sources of the retail store for a fixed time period such as per day, per week, per month, an identification code of each of the receiving display terminals associated with each of the perishable items, etc. The price management system analyzes the received sales information to identify the perishable items that are lagging in sales and approaching their expiration dates. The price management system identifies a perishable item, for example, a loaf of bread that is lagging in sales, available in large quantities in the inventory at the retail store, and approaching the expiration date. The price management system determines the original price of the loaf of bread is $2.50 from the received sales information. The price management system initiates a retail price change determination to reduce the price of the loaf of bread based on the received sales information comprising, for example, bread inventory and the sales pattern of the loaf of bread on a specific day in a specific week of a specific month. If the bread is available in large quantities in the inventory and is approaching the expiration date, the price management system determines an updated price of $1.99 for the loaf of bread in a bid to attract customers); and (Sarkar: [0063] The price management system then identifies a stock keeping unit (SKU) of the loaf of bread in order to reflect a change of the price of the loaf of bread at the retail store. The price management system performs a search in the price management database, compares the original price of the loaf of bread obtained from the received sales information with the updated price of the loaf of bread, and selects the SKU of the loaf of bread that shows a change in the price. The price management system identifies the SKU of the loaf of bread and determines the unique identification codes of the receiving display terminals associated with the loaf of bread by querying the price management database. The price management system further identifies the receiving display terminals associated with the SKU of the loaf of bread, positioned in various locations of the retail store using the determined unique identification codes. These receiving display terminals initially display the original price of the loaf of bread and information associated with the loaf of bread. The price management system locates the identified receiving display terminals via the positioning units of the identified receiving display terminals by using, for example, a global positioning system (GPS) and the determined unique identification codes. The price management system transmits the updated price of $1.99 for the loaf of bread to each of the located receiving display terminals via the transmission devices. The located receiving display terminals display the updated price of $1.99 on their respective graphical user interfaces (GUIs). For perishable items that are fast approaching their expiration dates, the price management system periodically monitors the billing sources to receive the sales information and determines the sales pattern after the updated price is transmitted to each of the receiving display terminals. The price management system determines this sales pattern at short intervals, for example, a predetermined number of times in a day or a week to avoid revenue losses due to expired perishable items. Based on the determined sales pattern, the price management system initiates the retail price change determination for further price changes) and
provide the user terminal with the product stock information acquired by the acquisition unit, based on a request of the user (Sarkar: [0062]-[0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto to include price reductions/discounts for goods after sales as taught by Sakar identifying one or more items requiring a change of the prices based on the determined pricing data of the items (Sarkar: [0029]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omer et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0081980 A1) in view of Tak (US PG Pub. 2012/0095823 A1) in view of Teramoto (US PG Pub. 2022/0292446 A1) and Eglen et al. (US PG Pub. 2008/0059384 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Veit et al. (US PG Pub. 20050197897 A1).
As per claim 14, Omer et al. in view of Tak in view of Teramoto and Eglen et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 2. Omer et al. in view of Tak in view of Teramoto and Eglen et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Veit et al. discloses:
depending on types of the products, the processor is configured to individually set the price reduction information to be associated with the products with same markdown code
(Veit et al.: [0058] In forming the correspondence between products or services and markdown profiles, the user can assign a markdown profile to entire groups or categories of products or services. For example, one markdown profile can be assigned to all products of a particular type (e.g., raincoats). The user can also more finely correspond specific markdown profiles to sub-groupings of those products. For example, the user could assign a different markdown profile to red raincoats than is assigned to blue raincoats and different than is assigned to the larger category of all raincoats. Indeed, a markdown profile may be specifically tailored for a particular product of a particular color and size. In an exemplary embodiment, if an individual product is not separately assigned a specific markdown profile, then the markdown profile for the relevant larger product category may be used for that product) also see [0055]). {The Examiner interprets the markdown profile to be equivalent to a markdown code}. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto to include providing the markdown code/profile for a group of the same products as taught by Veit et al. to make sure the entire group of seasonal merchandise is sold by a particular date since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omer et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0081980 A1) in view of Tak (US PG Pub. 2012/0095823 A1) in view of Teramoto (US PG Pub. 2022/0292446 A1) and Veit et al. (US PG Pub. 20050197897 A1) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of in view of Ziotopoulos et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0280960 A1).
As per claim 16, Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto discloses the information processing system according to claim 4. Omer et al. does not further disclose, however, Ziotopoulos et al. discloses wherein:
the processor is configured to set a price reduction rate or a price reduction extent of the product, for each combination of the products each with the markdown code (Ziotopoulos et al. : Abstract, [0063] In one aspect, the customer may enter parameters such as a proposed quantity or proposed product bundle into the mobile device ([0063] At 604, once the mobile device has product identification data and any parameters that will be included in the request for a discount offer, transmits the product identification data (and parameters) to discount negotiation application 302. At 606, the customer receives a response to the request, including a refusal of the request or a discount offer (e.g. a reduction off of a labeled price of a product, a credit granted to the customer having a value corresponding to the discount offer, etc.). In one example, the customer repeats this process for any product being purchased on which a discount may be desired); and [0064] Turning to FIG. 7, a methodology 700 that facilitates automatically negotiating discount offers with a customer is displayed, according to one aspect. At 702, product identification data is received from a customer. At 704, characteristic information about the identified product is retrieved from a retailer inventory database maintained by product retailer 104. According to one example, the characteristic information can include the expiration date of the product, the inventory level of the product, the scheduled delivery date for a shipment, manufacturer sales incentives, and/or the like. At 706, a discount offer is calculated. In one example, the discount offer is calculated based on the set of rules that were specified or selected by retailer 104. These rules may apply discounts based on a variety of factors including the period of time until a product's expiration date, product bundling, bulk purchases, overstocked products, and/or the like. At 708, the discount offer is transmitted to the customer. In one example, the discount offer is also transmitted to a point of sale for verification at checkout. In another example, the discount offer is transmitted with a digital signature that can be verified at checkout); also see [0048],[0052]). {The examiner interprets the discount value to be a markdown code}. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omer et al. in view of Tak in view of Teramoto and Veit et al. to include price reductions/discounts for a combination of goods as taught by Ziotopoulot et al. to negotiate discounted prices.
Claims 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omer et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0081980 A1) in view of Tak (US PG Pub. 2012/0095823 A1) and Teramoto (US PG Pub. 2022/0292446 A1) as applied to claims 1, 11, and 12 above and in further view of Wohlert et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0317667 A1).
As per claims 18, 19, and 20, Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto discloses the information processing system, method, and non-transitory storage medium a according to claims 1, 11, and 12, respectively. Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto does not explicitly disclose, however, Wohlert et al. discloses:
wherein a price reduction rate associated with the markdown code varies depending on at least one of a type (Wohlert et al:. [0017] seasonal items), a property, and a stock quantity of the price reduction product (Wohlert et al:.[0017]-0019] In another example, the optimal price of an item at a given time may change based upon more “local” data. For instance, the system may implement an algorithm-based approach to determine a merchant's current level of inventory of an item, and accounting for the expiration date(s) of the items in stock, the system may adjust the current price and forecast optimal prices at a number of future times. For seasonal sales items, the merchant could establish an “expiry” date that reflects the date by which the product needs to be sold. For instance, the value of a seasonal item at expiry may not be zero, and a minimum price could be identified. If the item does not sell at that price, then it could be returned or stored, e.g., until next season. An illustrative algorithm for calculating a current discounted price is given as follows:
TABLE-US-00002
ChangePrice (ItemID)
IF NumberOfItems (ItemID) > MinimumNumItems (ItemID) ;
have items ?
AND TimeTilExpiry (ItemID) > MinimumExpiryTime (ItemID) ;
not expired?
AND NumberItemsSold (ItemID, TimeInterval (ItemID))<
ItemMinThreshold (ItemID) ; not selling?
THEN PriceDelta := AdjustPrice (ItemID); determine % to change
price ; the AdjustPrice function considers time to expiry, current price, etc.
; the AdjustPrice function can set a minimum price
CurrentPrice (ItemID) = BasePrice (ItemID) x PriceDelta.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omer et al. in view of Tak and Teramoto to include setting a date and/or time for items to sell based on type or quantity available as taught by Wohlert et al. in order to price the items available so as to deplete the inventory of the item available by the expiration date in order to avoid a total loss of sale (Wohlert et al.:[0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Miyata et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0117868 A1) discloses a code reading, method, and program in which a label including the code is attached to an item, and the discount line is drawn on the code and a discount seal is attached to an item; and the discount seal includes a character string indicating a discount rate or a discount price.
2) Murata (JP 20091313732 A) discloses an electronic shelf label, markdown system, markdown method, and a merchandise replenishment ordering system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on 571-272-5587. 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.
/F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628