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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment received on 01 May 2026 has been acknowledged and entered.
Claims 1, 11, 12, and 17 have been amended. No new claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/20/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner. However, the Patent(s) and/or publication(s) cited in the office actions submitted in the information disclosure statement have not been separately considered.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 May 2026 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 10-11) that the Office Action alleges that the claims are directed to "Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" and "Commercial Interactions." The Office Action further alleges that "determining and displaying product pricing does not provide a technical improvement to a technology or technical field" and that "the computer components are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea." Applicant respectfully disagrees. As amended, claim 1 is not merely directed to abstract commercial activity for displaying a price, but rather defines specific technical features, as discussed below.
In particular, amended claim 1 recites, among other features:
the markdown code is configured to be visually recognizable by a user to distinguish expiration dates of the plurality of products;
a label including the markdown code is physically attached to each of the plurality of products;
the electronic shelf label displays the markdown code and price reduction rate, and
a user is enabled to match the markdown code printed on the label of each product with the corresponding markdown code and price reduction rate displayed on the electronic shelf label ("visual matching"), defining a specific interaction between a physical element (the printed label) and a digital element (the electronic shelf
label); and
the server is configured to switch which of the plurality of markdown codes are
displayed on the electronic shelf label as price reduction target codes, while the label attached to each of the plurality of products remains unchanged, defining a
specific display control by the server.
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.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that first, “associating…and ‘a visually recognizable markdown code’ based on one of a symbol, sign, mark, or a pattern” is a Mental Process as it could also be performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions); and “distinguishing expiration dates does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Secondly, physically attaching a label to a product does not take it out of the “Method of organizing human activity grouping. attached to product. Thirdly, “displaying” a markdown code is a method of organizing human activity, and “enabling a user to match the mark down code…” are methods of organizing human activity, as well as the “enabling” step being a mental process as the matching is performed in the human mind. Further, “switching which codes that are to be displayed” is a method of organizing human activity. Lastly, the claimed “technical features” appear to be generic tools used to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, page 11) that amended claim 1 solves a problem recited in [0003] of the specification as filed, namely, the problem that working time required for the markdown work is excessively long. More specifically, amended claim 1 provides a specific technical solution involving the interaction between a physical printed label with a markdown code printed thereon and an electronic shelf label displaying a markdown code. As set forth in [0020] of the specification, "after the store staff once attaches the labels to the products, the store staff does not need to attach the markdown labels to the products again. Thus, work efficiency in the store can be improved." This solution is not directed to performing a business method on a general-purpose computer, but defines a specific technical interaction between the physical label and the electronic shelf label. Further, the addition of a printer as a claim element, configured to print the label based on the markdown code received from the server, further contributes to the specific technical implementation of the claimed system. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application, and should be found patent-eligible. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that first, “working time required for the markdown work is excessively long” appears to be a business solution to a business problem, and not a technical solution to a technical solution by enhancing the overall performance of the information processing device. Secondly, there does not appear to be a technical improvement to a technical problem involving the interaction between a physical printed label with a markdown code printed thereon and an electronic shelf label displaying a markdown code. Further, Applicant has not shown a teaching in the specification on how the invention improves a technology nor established a clear nexus between the claim language and the improvement to technology where both the claims and the specification should support the asserted technical improvement. Thirdly, Applicant’s claims do not provide a “technology-based solution”, however, Applicant has presented an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components in a way to apply to markdown codes on electronic shelf labels. Further, the courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application as: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); and Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Lastly, the use of the printer to perform a post-solution activity does not provide significantly more. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are patent ineligible.
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.
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 therefore, 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 1-20 all fall within 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 the markdown code is printed on each label and is configured to be visually recognizable by a user to distinguish expiration dates of the plurality of product; 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 for each of the plurality of products in association with the price reduction information, such that a user is enabled to match the markdown code printed on the label of each product with the corresponding markdown code and price reduction rate displayed on the electronic shelf label;
wherein a current price associated with each markdown code is set and caused to be displayed on the electronic shelf label;
switch/switch/switch which of the plurality of markdown codes are displayed on the electronic shelf label as price reduction target codes, while the label attached to each of the plurality of products remains unchanged; and
print/print/print the label based on the markdown code.
These processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover 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,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a printer,” “a product stock database,” “a server,” and “a processor”; claim 11 recites the additional elements: “an information processing system,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a printer,” “a product stock database,” and “a server”; and claim 12 recites the additional elements: “an information processing system,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a printer,” “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,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a printer,” “a product stock database,” “a server,” and “a processor” in claim 1; “an information processing system,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a product stock database,” and “a server” in claim 11; and “an information processing system,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a printer,” “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,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a printer,” “a product stock database,” “a server,” and “a processor” in claim 1; “an information processing system,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a printer,” “a product stock database,” and “a server” in claim 11; and “an information processing system,” “an electronic shelf label,” “a printer,” “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,” “electronic shelf label,” “a printer,” “product stock database,” “server,” and “processor” in claim 1; “information processing system,” “electronic shelf label,” “a printer,” “product stock database,” and “server” in claim 11; and “information processing system,” “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,” “display/display/display,” “switch/switch/switch,” and “print/print/print” 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.
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.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, pages 12-15, filed 01 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Prior Art Discussion
As per claims 1, 11, and 12, the best prior art:
1) Omer et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0081980 A1) discloses methods and system to reduce food waste and optimize markdowns and control prices in retail by use of a at least one server configured to: transmit at least one calculated price of the good to a system managing one or more displays in real-time such that the pricing per good that is transmitted to a POS is aligned with the prices shown on the displays for the same good. Further, the system includes a display server, where the at least one calculated price of the good is based on the expiration date of the good; and the at least one server also transmits a non-discounted price of the good and/or additional pricing for the good based on other expiration dates of the good to the system.
2) Tak (US PG Pub. 2012/0095823 A1) discloses a sale method and system employing product price varying dependent upon valid date of product; and a sale method employing a product (which has a limited valid period from a manufacture date) whose price is varied according to the period elapsed from a manufacture date, and a bar code and system enabling the sales method and system; and discounted prices can be included in an extended bar code, and thus a discounted price code indicated in the extended bar code can be read when calculating the price of a product being purchased at a counter to apply a discounted rate on the basis of time elapsed from manufacture date/hour for exact calculation; and
As per claims 1, 11, and 12, the best NPL prior art:
1) Munbodh, Emma, ”Aldi is launching a new 75% off bargain hour on hundreds of perishable lines”, 12 Jan 2021, mirror.co.uk, 7 pages, discloses the German discounter Aldi is launching a new bargain hour where food is reduced by up to 75%. The stickers look exactly the same as the current red labels, but instead have "75% off" in bold text and "Customers should look out for the red stickers when shopping at Aldi, but shoppers need to be quick as I’m sure the products will prove popular"; and 'Yellow stickers' have become the guilty pleasure of food shopping, and if the time is right, the discounts can be substantial.
2)“Digital tool helps MENY in the fight against food waste”, 13.02.2020, ixtenso.com, 4 pages, discloses that after a convincing test, Dagrofa rolls out the food waste app ‘Whywaste’ in all the Danish MENY stores. In addition to the app, the new IT solution also consists of handheld terminals and label printers to print out discount labels – directly from the app. With handheld terminals, the store staff can manage the Whywaste app and keep track of expiration dates by using a manageable list which presents the groceries that may exceed the expiration date; and a connected label printer enables you to print discount labels for the selected items through the app so that the customer gets the opportunity to buy the groceries at a reduced price, instead of the supermarket just must throw out the goods.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Marcarelli, Rebekah; “Why Retailers Are Turning On to Electronic Shelf Labels”, April 3, 2019, supermarketnews.com, 8 pages discloses electronic shelf labels aren't new, but the application of the technology in stores has grown as retailers look to them to manage labor and stock, streamline e-commerce and communicate with shoppers in new ways; and the Kroger Co. has obviously taken a keen interest in ESL-related opportunities given its recent partnership with Microsoft to create proprietary technology called EDGE (Enhanced Display for Grocery Environment) Shelf.
2) Munbodh, Emma, “Aldi has a secret bargain hour when popular items like cheese are reduced to half price”, 11 Nov 2020; morror.co.uk, 6 pages discloses the German discounter left shoppers stunned after revealing exactly what time meat, deli counter produce and even snacks are reduced to half price.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights