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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
an input unit in claim 1
a control unit in claim 1
an input unit in claim 8
a control unit in claim 8
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to attempting to retain a customer after an indication they wish to cancel a purchase for an item, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-4, 7 recite a device comprising a display, an input unit, a communication interface, and a control unit. Claims 5 and 6 each recites an apparatus comprising a shopping cart and a mobile merchandise registration device. Claims 8-14 recite a system comprising a serve device, and a mobile merchandise registration device. Claims 15-20 recite a method including at least one step. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (apparatus, apparatus, apparatus, apparatus, process).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which a customer is attempted to be retained after indicating cancellation of a purchase of an item, including through the facilitation of consumer-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
listing each merchandise item registered as purchase targets in the sales transaction
receive a cancellation operation for cancelling the registration of a merchandise item as a purchase target listed
after receiving the cancellation operation, a cancellation operation confirmation screen and including sales retention information regarding the merchandise item that is a subject of the cancellation operation; and
cause the registration of the merchandise item that is the subject of the cancellation operation to be cancelled if the user confirms the cancellation operation.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to make an attempt to retain the customer upon the customer attempting to cancel a purchase target item and between a customer and business to aid in retaining the customer. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
a display to display information to a user while shopping in a store;
an input unit for receiving user inputs from the user;
a communication interface to connect to a server device tracking a sales transaction of the user at the store; and
a control unit configured to:
display a first screen on the display, the first screen for;
via the input unit,
on the first screen;
display a second screen on the display, the second screen being
via the second screen
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (e.g., “a display”, “a communication interface”, “a control unit”, “via the input unit”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (display). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 48-50, 75-80, and 130 set forth exemplary general-purpose elements that may be used to implement the invention. Paragraph 211 indicates that while these exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 merely set forth additional embellishments to the abstract idea of attempting to retain a customer upon the customer attempting to cancel a purchase target item, including facilitating interaction between consumers and businesses. These embellishments are applied to the same technological environment as independent claims 1, 8, and 15. As such, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 18
Claims 4, 11, and 18 set forth:
wherein the sales retention information is received in response to a cancellation request associated with the cancellation operation.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of attempting to retain a customer upon the customer attempting to cancel a purchase target item, including facilitating interaction between consumers and businesses. While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “via the communication interface from the server device”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding Claims 5-7, 12-14, 19-20
Claims 5-7, 12-14, 19-20 set forth
a shopping cart;
wherein the mobile merchandise registration device is mounted to the shopping cart.
a camera to acquire images of merchandise items
These additional limitations merely serve to apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. They do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the claims set forth “for registering the merchandise items as purchase targets in the sales transaction”. However, this recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of attempting to retain a customer upon the customer attempting to cancel a purchase target item, including facilitating interaction between consumers and businesses. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
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.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20130030856 A1, hereinafter Johnson) in view of Nemati et al. (US 20200034812 A1, hereinafter Nemati).
Regarding Claim 8
Johnson discloses a store sales support system, comprising:
a server device configured to track a sales transaction of a customer (Johnson: see at least fig. 1, ¶20-21); and
a mobile merchandise registration device shopping (Johnson: see at least ¶22-23) including:
a display to display information to customer while shopping (Johnson: see at least ¶22-23);
an input unit for receiving user inputs from the customer shopping (Johnson: see at least ¶22-23);
a communication interface connected to the server device shopping (Johnson: see at least ¶22-23); and
a control unit shopping (Johnson: see at least ¶22-23) configured to:
display a first screen on the display, the first screen for listing each merchandise item registered as purchase targets in the sales transaction shopping (Johnson: see at least ¶22-23);
receive a cancellation operation, via the input unit, for cancelling the registration of a merchandise item as a purchase target listed on the first screen shopping (Johnson: see at least ¶22-23);
after receiving the cancellation operation, display a second screen on the display, the second screen being a cancellation operation confirmation screen and including sales retention information regarding the merchandise item that is a subject of the cancellation operation (Johnson: see at least abstract, ¶4,26: customer offered discount in subsequent interface after requesting cancellation) ; and
cause the registration of the merchandise item that is the subject of the cancellation operation to be cancelled if the user confirms the cancellation operation via the second screen (Johnson: see at least fig. 3; ¶26: customer may accept discount or confirm cancellation)
Johnson does not explicitly disclose that the shopping, cancellation request, and discount process are performed while a customer is in a store. However, Nemati teaches that it is known to process in-store discount offering in response to customer shopping activity (see at least ¶39, 101) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Johnson, with the features taught by Nemati, since such a modification would have provided more efficient self-checkout for increased customer checkout speed and improved customer satisfaction. (Nemati: see at least ¶27)
Regarding Claims 1, 15
Claims 1 and 15 are substantially similar in scope to claim 8 and are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 16
Johnson does not explicitly disclose, but Nemati teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the sales retention information describes a price discount associated with purchase of the merchandise item. (Nemati: see at least ¶100)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Johnson, with the features taught by Nemati, since such a modification would have provided more efficient self-checkout for increased customer checkout speed and improved customer satisfaction. (Nemati: see at least ¶27)
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 17
Johnson further discloses:
wherein the sales retention information describes a price discount that will be lost when registration of the merchandise item is cancelled. (Johnson: see at least abstract, ¶4,26)
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 18
Johnson further discloses:
wherein the sales retention information is received via the communication interface from the server device in response to a cancellation request associated with the cancellation operation. (Johnson: see at least abstract, ¶4,26)
Regarding Claims 5-6, 12-13, 19
Johnson in view of Nemati discloses a mobile merchandise registration device according to claims 1, 4, 8, and 15, as set forth above. Additionally, Nemati teaches that it is known to include a cart-based point-of-sale apparatus, comprising: a shopping cart, wherein the mobile merchandise registration device is mounted to the shopping cart (Nemati: see at least ¶39, 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Johnson, with the features taught by Nemati, since such a modification would have provided more efficient self-checkout for increased customer checkout speed and improved customer satisfaction. (Nemati: see at least ¶27)
Regarding Claims 7, 14, 20
Johnson does not explicitly disclose, but Nemati teaches in a similar environment:
a camera to acquire images of merchandise items for registering the merchandise items as purchase targets in the sales transaction (Nemati: see at least ¶70)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Johnson, with the features taught by Nemati, since such a modification would have provided more efficient self-checkout for increased customer checkout speed and improved customer satisfaction. (Nemati: see at least ¶27)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ouimet et al. (US 20140156392 A1) discloses a commerce system and method of controlling the commerce system using budgets for personalized shopping lists, including a smart cart for managing adding and removing items from a purchase list.
Sanghavi et al. (US 20200372561 A1) discloses dynamic ranking of recommendation pairings, including presenting retention offers to customers at risk of cancelling a product.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights