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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a Final Office Action in response to the amendments filed 11/13/2025. 1, 3, 6, 8 and 9 have been amended. Claims 5 and 7 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 9 are pending addressed below.
Priority
The instant application claims priority to JP 2023-121369. Per MPEP 2304.01c, a certified translation of every foreign benefit application or Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application not filed in English is required. See 35 U.S.C. 119(b)(3) and 372(b)(3) and 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3)(i) and 41.154(b). If no certified translation is in the official record for the application, the examiner must require the applicant to file a certified translation. The applicant should provide the required translation if applicant wants the application to be accorded benefit of the non-English language application. Any showing of priority that relies on a non-English language application is prima facie insufficient if no certified translation of the application is on file. See 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Examiner’s Notes
The Examiner notes that p. 3 lines 19-20 provides a definition of “store” as “A store is a store where a customer purchases a product displayed on a shelf, and includes a retail business or a wholesale business.
The Examiner notes that p. 8 lines 7-8 provides a definition of “POP” or point of purchase as “an advertisement media installed mainly for product promotion at retail stores.
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 1-4, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Under step 1, claim 1 is directed to a machine, claim 8 to a method, and claim 9 to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 9 are directed to statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The independent claims recite, “acquire posted information on a media of a product sold in a store and reaction information on an Internet to the posted information; analyze, based on the reaction information, an attribute of a customer who pays attention to a posted product by estimating any of an age and a gender of a contributor; specify the any of the gender and the age at which at least a number of posts to the posted information are determined to be made; suggest, based on an aspect of a main target of the posted product, content, of a point of purchase (POP) targeting the specified any of the gender and the age of the customer, by changing any of a use of colors, a font size, a number of characters, and a presence and an absence of illustrations of the POP, the aspect being at least one of a gender and an age of the main target; and display the suggested content of the POP on a display device.” These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claimed invention acquire posted information, specify age and gender, and suggests content, which are advertising and sales activities and behaviors. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the additional elements of “a sales promotion device”, “at least one processor”, “a memory”, “a computer’, and “a non-transitory recording medium”. These additional elements are generic computing elements performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. The claims also recite, “display the suggested content of the POP on a display device” which is insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The 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 elements of “a sales promotion device”, “at least one processor”, “a memory”, “a computer’, and “a non-transitory recording medium”. These additional elements are generic computing elements performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. The claims also recite, “display the suggested content of the POP on a display device” which is well-known in the art per Linden (US 2016/0117740), Gao (US 2015/0193784),, and Garel (US 2022/0156764). Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of claim 1 without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6 analyze information and propose various options which are part of the same abstract idea as claim 1.
As such, when claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 9 are considered individually, as a whole, or in combinations, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Linden (US 2016/0117740).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, Linden teaches
1. A sales promotion proposal device comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to ([0211] "FIG. 10 illustrates, in block diagram form, an exemplary computing device 1000 that may be configured to perform one or more of the processes described above...As shown by FIG. 10, the computing device can comprise a processor 1002, memory 1004, a storage device 1006, an I/O interface 1008, and a communication interface 1010.")
8. A sales promotion proposal method causing a computer to execute ([0009]):
9. A non-transitory recording medium having stored therein a program for causing a computer to execute ([0202]):
acquire posted information on a media of a product sold in a store ([0096] "For example, the advertiser may post information about itself, about its products [acquire posted information on a media of a product] or provide other information to the social networking system 204 users with a brand page associated with the advertiser. The social networking system 204 and/or the product remarketing system 201 can track the activity with respect to the merchant's [sold in a store] social networking content, and augment the social networking profile with social networking activity data 126 that corresponds to the user's 211 activity on the social networking system 204." See also [0095].)
and reaction information on an Internet to the posted information ([0110] "As described above, the user 311 can use the client device 302 to communicate with the social networking system 304, such as to post messages/updates, view social networking content (e.g., posts, pictures, messages), interact with content (e.g., "like" or "comment" [reaction information on the posted information] with respect to the social networking [Internet] content)." See also [0047], [0071], and [0084].);
analyze, based on the reaction information, an attribute of a customer who pays attention to a posted product by estimating any of an age and a gender of a contributor; specify the any of the gender and the age at which at least a number of posts to the posted information are determined to be made ([0148] "In some example embodiments, the product remarketing system 501 can identify dynamic audience information (e.g., common attributes and characteristics of users within a dynamic audience 503). For example, the product remarketing system 501 can identify that 78% of the dynamic audience 503 is female [estimating and specifying the gender], 120 users viewed the product on multiple web sites, and/or over half of the users live in California. The dynamic audience information can also include the number of users in the dynamic audience 503 as well as the number of users for whom an interest is detected for a particular level of interest in the product ( e.g., the number of users who viewed, selected, requested additional information, compared, commented [at least a number of posts to the posted information], added to cart, removed from cart, added to a wish list, etc. for the product)." See also [0095], [0061], and [0012].);
suggest, based on an aspect of a main target of the posted product, content, of a point of purchase (POP) targeting the specified any of the gender and the age of the customer, by changing any of a use of colors, a font size, a number of characters, and a presence and an absence of illustrations of the POP ([0155] "In one or more embodiments, the product remarketing system 501 can generate an advertisement using a template that is customized to a user 311 based on the user's social networking profile. For example, each user profile can include a personalized user template [suggest content of a point of purchase] tailored to the user 311. The template can define advertisement characteristics preferred by the user, such as colors, brands, price, images, prose, formality, typeface, fonts, etc." [0156] "In another instance, the template may not include a product description field because the user 311 prefers advertisements having a picture [presence of illustrations], title, price of a product, and not description." See also [0152].),
the aspect being at least one of a gender and an age of the main target ([0174] "In some example embodiments, an advertiser 208 can select the number of audience filter criteria 604 a user 211 must satisfy before being included in the dynamic audience. For example, an advertiser 211 may select and/or add the criterion of "manager" for the position filter option 626/, the criterion of "New York City" for the current city filter option 626i, and the criterion of "26-30" for the age range filter option 626b. The advertiser 208 can select that a user 211 meet one, two, or all three audience filter criteria 604 to be included in the dynamic audience, or which audience filter criteria 604 are required and which are preferred. For example, the advertiser 208 can select that a user 211 be 26-30 [age] , and either from New York City or a manager to be included in the dynamic audience." See also [0163].);
and display the suggested content of the POP on a display device ([0159] "In step 524, the product remarketing system 501 can provide the customized product remarketing advertisements to the dynamic audience 503. In particular, the product remarketing system 501 can send the one or more remarketing advertisements to client devices 302 associated with users in the dynamic audience 503. Upon receiving the product remarketing advertisement, each client device 302 can present the advertisement to a corresponding user 311, shown in step 526. As described above, the client device 302 can present the advertisement in a web browser, mobile application ( e.g., a native or third-party application), or using another medium.").
Regarding claim 3, Linden teaches
3. The sales promotion proposal device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: propose the content of the point of purchase (POP) to be used for sales promotion of the posted product ([0013] "For example, for each user of the dynamic audience, the systems and methods disclosed herein can identify one or more user characteristics from the user's user profile that increase the probability that the user will make a product purchase [to be used for sales promotion of the posted product] (i.e., lead to a product conversion). Alternatively, the systems and methods disclosed herein can generate and serve multiple customized advertisements for a product to a user to identify which characteristics are favored by the user.").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linden (US 2016/0117740), in view of Garel (P. G. Pub. No. 2020/0156764).
Regarding claim 4, Linden proposes a sales promotion in a store and discusses in [0039] using the user’s past activities that indicate an interest in a product or related products but not specifically
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: propose a sales promotion method in a store of the posted product based on past posted information and reaction information of a similar product similar to the posted product and a sales situation of the similar product.
However, Garel teaches
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: propose a sales promotion method in a store of the posted product based on past posted information and reaction information of a similar product similar to the posted product and a sales situation of the similar product ([0123] "Additionally, the system is able to promote products that are similar to the ones the system has determined the customer is interested in, particularly those that the retailer either wants to move----due to characteristics such as high inventory levels or product end-of-life-or that the manufacturer/merchandizer has paid money for its product to be promoted or advertised. For example, this promotional information can be in the form of reviews, ratings, feature set, description, promotions, offers, pictures, and videos.").
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 content used for sales promotion of Linden by adding wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: propose a content of a point of purchase (POP) used for sales promotion of the posted product, as taught by Garel, in order to provide optimized message to customers that will influence their purchasing (Garel, [0005]).
Claims 2 and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linden (US 2016/0117740), in view of Gao (P. G. Pub. No. 2015/0193784).
Regarding claim 2, Linden does not specifically teach
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: propose a position where the posted product is displayed.
However, Gao teaches
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: propose a position where the posted product is displayed ([0109] "In an aspect, the brick and mortar store channel includes a plurality of zones representing actual locations within the brick and mortar store, the first zone in the brick and mortar store including areas within the brick and mortar store having a higher visibility to customers, and the second zone within the brick and mortar store including areas within the brick and mortar store having a lower visibility to customers. The method may include determining whether the profitability profile [attribute] of each product meets pre-established criteria for a first zone of the plurality of zones of the brick and mortar store channel; and if the profitability profile is higher, then displaying a product of the plurality of products in the first zone of the plurality of zones in the brick and mortar store channel and if the profitability profile is lower, then displaying a product of the plurality of products in the second zone of the plurality of zones in the brick and mortar store channel." It is based on reaction information [0037] "It may also include or obtain product review information [reaction information], information regarding related products, and other information." See also [0082].).
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 system of Linden by adding propose a position where the posted product is displayed, as taught by Gao, in order to increase profitability (Gao, [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, Linden teaches
6. The sales promotion proposal device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: analyze an attribute of the posted product based on the reaction information ([0086] "As another example, an edge between a user node and a product node can represent a relationship between a user and a product (e.g., that the user likes the product or uses/owns the product) or an interaction between the user and the product (e.g., that the user mentioned the product, shopped for the product, viewed a profile page for the product, etc.). As a further example, an edge between two product nodes can represent a relationship between two products (e.g., that the products are in a common product category, that the products are often purchased together, that users interested in one product are often interested in the other, that the products share one or more common attributes, etc.).")
Linden does not specifically teach
propose a shelf allocation of the product sold in the store based on the attribute of the posted product.
However, Gao teaches
propose a shelf allocation of the product sold in the store based on the attribute of the posted product ([0109] "In an aspect, the brick and mortar store channel includes a plurality of zones representing actual locations within the brick and mortar store, the first zone in the brick and mortar store including areas within the brick and mortar store having a higher visibility to customers, and the second zone within the brick and mortar store including areas within the brick and mortar store having a lower visibility to customers. The method may include determining whether the profitability profile [attribute] of each product meets pre-established criteria for a first zone of the plurality of zones of the brick and mortar store channel; and if the profitability profile is higher, then displaying a product of the plurality of products in the first zone of the plurality of zones in the brick and mortar store channel and if the profitability profile is lower, then displaying a product of the plurality of products in the second zone of the plurality of zones in the brick and mortar store channel." It is based on reaction information [0037] "It may also include or obtain product review information [reaction information], information regarding related products, and other information." See also [0082].).
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 system of Linden by adding propose a shelf allocation of the product sold in the store based on the attribute of the posted product, as taught by Gao, in order to increase profitability (Gao, [0005]).
Response to Argument
With regards to the 101 rejection, on p. 7, Applicant states, “See the background of Applicant's specification indicates that, even if television viewing history may be used to generate sales promotion information, such as based on whether some condition with respect to that history had been met, the technology and technical field would be improved by more effective conditions, proposals, and provision of information. See published specification paragraphs [0002]-[0009], [0019]-[0021], [0055]-[0062], and other related descriptions for example. And claim 1, for example, is believed to reflect those improvements by reciting…As such, it is requested that the rejection be withdrawn as the criteria of MPEP 2106.04(d)(l) are met, and also because "display the suggested content of the POP on a display device" represents a practical application.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement may be to the business methods “more effective conditions, proposals, and provision of information” but it is not to the technology. Furthermore, as explained in the 101 rejection above, the displaying step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As such, Examiner is not persuaded.
On pages 8-9, Applicant points to the MPEP and states, “And further, as described above, it is believed that the claims are not ‘directed to’ such abstract ideas but instead to providing a technical solution that, even if involving the possibility that the claimed features might be later used for the alleged abstract idea does not change that the criteria set out in MPEP 2106.04(d)(l) have been met and by which ‘[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application’. It is unclear what technical solution the claims provide. As explained in the 101 rejection above, the abstract is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, Examiner is not persuaded.
On p. 10-11, Applicant states, “And so, respectfully, the Step 2B of the pending rejection should be similarly withdrawn as at least the pending claims seem to be, pending the Examiner's further search and consideration, allowable, at least by the criteria of 35 USC 102 and 103, which, although perhaps irrelevant to the Step 2A Prong I inquiry of whether a claim feature is directed to an abstract idea, seems at least informative, if not dispositive, to the Step 2B inquiry in this application and these claims.” And in other words, even if, for the sake of argument, the claims were considered to be directed to an abstract idea, arguendo, the ordered combination of the claimed elements constitutes an inventive concept that is significantly more than the idea itself Or if not, then there is no adequate explanation otherwise in the record of this application. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the rejection be withdrawn for any of the above reasons.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per the 102 and 103 rejections above, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. Therefore, Examiner is not persuaded.
On p. 11, Applicant states, “Although it is requested that the rejection be withdrawn for any of the above reasons, if the rejection is still to be maintained, then it is requested that the Examiner make a suggested claim amendment according to the note at MPEP 2106.07(a)(II), as part of the Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B analysis.” Examiner consulted the specification and did not find any elements that would make the claims eligible.
Conclusion
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 MARIE P. BRADY whose telephone number is (571)272-4855. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Thurs 8:00 - 2:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571)270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARIE P BRADY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622