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 .
Priority
Application 18/853,199 was filed on October 1, 2024 and claims priority to Japanese Patent Application 2022-071414 filed on April 25, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 1, 2024 was filed before the mailing date of this non-final action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6 and 14 recite, “and storing the customer to whom the point has been issued and the first business operator or the second business operator having issued the point in association with point information corresponding the point” (emphasis added). This limitation appears to contain a typographical error. The literal meaning of the claims is that the customer and business operators are being stored. However, according to paragraph [0023] (identifying business operator information storing unit 16 and the customer information storing unit 17) it is the information of the customer and business operator being stored. For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted to mean, “and storing the customer information to whom the point has been issued and information of the first business operator or the second business operator having issued the point in association with point information corresponding the point” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 12 recite, “comprising acquiring the selling measure information representing that a selling price by the first business operator selling at a place where the second business operator sells is to be set up” (emphasis added). It is unclear what this limitation is intended to mean. It appears that the selling price is to be set up. However, it is unclear what “set up” means or when the setting up occurs. Examiner notes that the language “is to be” is particularly confusing because it implies both present (“is”) and future (“to be”) tenses. For the purposes of examination, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are interpreted to mean that the selling price is predetermined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 14 recite, “and furthermore when the point is used to pay for selling by the second business operator, calculating a value of the token information to be provided by the second business operator to the first business operator, based on a ratio of the point associated with the first business operator to all the points held by the customer having used the point and a value of the point that the customer has used to pay for selling by the second business operator” (emphasis added). It is unclear what this limitation is intended to mean. The claims previously state that a point is issued to a customer. However, this limitation is ambiguous as to who is using the point because it can be interpreted as either the customer using the point to purchase an item from the second business operator or the second business operator using the point to sell an item to a customer. For the purposes of examination, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are interpreted to mean that the customer uses the point to purchase an item from the second business operator. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8 and 16 recite, “comprising newly generating the selling measure information based on the selling measure information by the first business operator and the sales information by the second business operator” (emphasis added). This limitation is unclear. It is unclear because it refers to “the selling measure information” as being newly generated, but also as being information that the generation is based on. It is therefore unclear whether it is the same information or new additional information that is being generated. For the purposes of examination, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are interpreted to mean that the new selling measure information is being generated based on old selling measure information. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite, providing a first business operator with previously registered selling information representing information on selling by a second business operator;
acquiring selling measure information representing a selling measure in cooperation with the second business operator by the first business operator, and sales information relating to selling by the second business operator;
and calculating token information having monetary value to be provided by the second business operator to the first business operator, based on the selling measure information by the first business operator and the sales information by the second business operator.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, calculating the amount that businesses compensate each other for cooperative selling is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to provide and acquire selling information as well as calculate token information can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 9, and 17 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: at least one memory (claim 9), at least one processor (claim 9), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 17), and a computer (claim 17). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. As such, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations, without adding any additional elements for analysis. Thus, claims 2-8 and 10-16 are also ineligible for the reasons stated above with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 1-4, 7-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0188521 to Iijima (Iijima).
As to claims 1, 9, and 17, Iijima teaches:
(claim 9) at least one memory storing processing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the processing instructions to (“FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of a commodity sales system according to the embodiment of the present invention. In FIG. 2, the commodity sales system is constituted of a coordinate proposal terminal 1, a settlement terminal 2; and a server 3, which are interconnected with a communication network …” [0018-0020]):
(claim 17) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, the program comprising instructions for causing a computer to execute processes to (“A recording medium for storing a program executed in a terminal employed in a first store …” [claims 21-23]):
providing a first business operator with previously registered selling information representing information on selling by a second business operator (“… Coordinate information [i.e., selling information] file 28 shown in FIG. 3(b) is a database storing information related to commodities of other stores which are coordinated to each commodity dealt in the original store (hereafter such commodities are referred to as coordinate commodities) …” and “… The clerk [i.e., first business operator] then displays images of the coordinate commodities in which the commodity for sale in the original store is combined with the commodity for sale in the other store (S11) [i.e., second business], and proposes the coordinate commodities to the customer …” [0021-0023 and 0025-0026]);
acquiring selling measure information representing a selling measure in cooperation with the second business operator by the first business operator, and sales information relating to selling by the second business operator (“… Here, the discount rate [i.e., selling measure information] is discount information to be applied when a customer purchases a coordinate commodity in the introduced store [i.e., second business] …” and “… Next, the customer comes to the introduced store, and preferably after confirming the real commodity which has been introduced from the original store, the customer indicate the will to purchase the commodity concerned” [0023-0024 and 0032-0035]);
and calculating token information having monetary value to be provided by the second business operator to the first business operator, based on the selling measure information by the first business operator and the sales information by the second business operator (“… The coupon information includes, for example, introduction number, original store name, introduced store name commodity name, commodity number, discount rate, commission rate, etc. Additionally, settlement terminal 2 may print out the coupon information (S28)” and “Settlement terminal 2 performs the sales processing for the commodity according to the coupon information (S31). At this time, settlement terminal 2 executes the settlement with the customer applying the discount rate included in the coupon information. Further, settlement terminal 2 calculates the sales commission to be paid to the original store, based on the commission rate included in the coupon information (S32) …” [0031-0032 and 0036-0037]).
As to claims 2 and 10, Iijima teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above. Iijima further teaches, comprising providing the first business operator with the selling information containing information on a value of the token information having monetary value to be provided by the second business operator (“… FIG. 7 shows an example of a receipt on which the coupon information is printed. FIG. 7 shows such a case that the customer receives an introduction of a commodity for sale in the other store, and that the customer purchases a commodity for sale in the original store …” [0031-0035]).
As to claims 3 and 11, Iijima teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above. Iijima further teaches, comprising acquiring the selling measure information representing that a customer of the first business operator is provided with introduction information introducing the second business operator by the first business operator (“Commission management file 36 shown in FIG. 3(d) stores information which is registered when a commodity of another store is introduced to a customer …” and “… Further, settlement terminal 2 acquires the commodity information related to the introduced commodity (store name, commodity name, discount rate, commission rate, etc.) from commodity information file 35 in server 3 (S25) …” [0025 and 0031-0035]).
As to claims 4 and 12, Iijima teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above. Iijima further teaches, comprising acquiring the selling measure information representing that a selling price by the first business operator selling at a place where the second business operator sells is to be set up (“… Further, preferably, the customer can purchase the commodity for sale in the other store at a predetermined discount price.” [0017]).
As to claims 7 and 15, Iijima teaches all of the limitations of claims 2 and 10 as discussed above. Iijima further teaches, comprising calculating information on the value of the token information to be provided by the second business operator, contained in the selling information of the second business operator, based on the selling measure information by the first business operator and the sales information by the second business operator (“… The coupon information includes, for example, introduction number, original store name, introduced store name commodity name, commodity number, discount rate, commission rate, etc. Additionally, settlement terminal 2 may print out the coupon information (S28)” and “Settlement terminal 2 performs the sales processing for the commodity according to the coupon information (S31). At this time, settlement terminal 2 executes the settlement with the customer applying the discount rate included in the coupon information. Further, settlement terminal 2 calculates the sales commission to be paid to the original store, based on the commission rate included in the coupon information (S32) …” [0031-0032 and 0036-0037]).
As to claims 8 and 16, Iijima teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above. Iijima further teaches, comprising newly generating the selling measure information based on the selling measure information by the first business operator and the sales information by the second business operator (“… Server 3 updates commission management file 36 based on the sales notification (S33). Namely, server 3 sets `1` into the introduction success flag corresponding to the introduction number, and writes the sales commission” [0037]).
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.
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 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0188521 to Iijima (Iijima) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0088184 to Nagai (Nagai).
As to claims 5 and 13, Iijima teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above. Iijima does not teach, comprising calculating a degree of contribution of the selling measure of the first business operator to sales of the second business operator based on the selling measure information by the first business operator and the sales information by the second business operator, and calculating a value of the token information to be provided by the second business operator to the first business operator, based on the degree of contribution. However, Nagai teaches, comprising calculating a degree of contribution of the selling measure of the first business operator to sales of the second business operator based on the selling measure information by the first business operator and the sales information by the second business operator, and calculating a value of the token information to be provided by the second business operator to the first business operator, based on the degree of contribution (“Further, the introducing server 3 assigns a purchase amount to a predetermined computational expression to calculate a commission amount (e.g., 5% on sales) in accordance with each introductory ID and associates each introductory ID with the commission amount …” and “The distributing server 7 calculates a manufacturer commission amount in accordance with each introductory history data while making reference to the distribution data, and tallies results in accordance with each manufacturer (a step 80) …” and “… Therefore, the commission can be extensively returned to relevant parties who contribute to a customer sending effect …” [0222-0224 and 0230-0231 and 0260]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, comprising calculating a degree of contribution of the selling measure of the first business operator to sales of the second business operator based on the selling measure information by the first business operator and the sales information by the second business operator, and calculating a value of the token information to be provided by the second business operator to the first business operator, based on the degree of contribution, as taught by Nagai with the sales cooperation system and method of Iijima. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Nagai that doing so would widely return a commission to related parties contributing to the effect of bringing in customers [0007].
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0188521 to Iijima (Iijima) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0265424 to Choi (Choi).
As to claims 6 and 14, Iijima teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above. Iijima does not teach, issuing a point to a customer according to each of selling by the first business operator and selling by the second business operator, and storing the customer to whom the point has been issued and the first business operator or the second business operator having issued the point in association with point information corresponding the point; and furthermore when the point is used to pay for selling by the second business operator, calculating a value of the token information to be provided by the second business operator to the first business operator, based on a ratio of the point associated with the first business operator to all the points held by the customer having used the point and a value of the point that the customer has used to pay for selling by the second business operator. However, Choi teaches, issuing a point to a customer according to each of selling by the first business operator and selling by the second business operator (“The payment information may include product value information. In another exemplary embodiment, the payment information may be the amount of money obtained by subtracting point payments by at least one of affiliate's points and merchant's own points from the product value information …” and “In another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, when the payment information is the amount of money obtained by subtracting the point amount paid by at least one of the merchant's own points and the merchant's affiliate's points from a price of a product, the point commission limit may be a value obtained by subtracting at least one of the amount of affiliate's point commission and the amount of merchant point commission from the amount of point commission for the product value …” [0060 and 0065]),
and storing the customer to whom the point has been issued and the first business operator or the second business operator having issued the point in association with point information corresponding the point (“… The affiliate's points may be the points stored in the point server of the point company having a direct contract with the merchant … The merchant's points may be points for each user stored in the merchant server. The merchant's points may be points for each user stored in a memory of the merchant server …” and “… The merchant information may be an identification code assigned to the merchant server. When at least one of the merchant server and the point server joins the point management server, the processor 120 may assign identification codes to the merchant server and the point server, respectively, and store the identification codes in the memory 130 …” [0065 and 0097-0098]);
and furthermore when the point is used to pay for selling by the second business operator, calculating a value of the token information to be provided by the second business operator to the first business operator, based on a ratio of the point associated with the first business operator to all the points held by the customer having used the point and a value of the point that the customer has used to pay for selling by the second business operator (“The point commission limit may include a limit of a total amount of point commission for the use of points to be paid to a point company set by a merchant … ” and “The operation of determining the usable point information will be described with an example. For example, the processor 120 may receive user information on user A, 10,000 that is the product value information included in the payment information, and 1,000 won that is the point commission limit from the merchant server through the network unit 110…” [0063-0067 and 0078-0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, issuing a point to a customer according to each of selling by the first business operator and selling by the second business operator, and storing the customer to whom the point has been issued and the first business operator or the second business operator having issued the point in association with point information corresponding the point; and furthermore when the point is used to pay for selling by the second business operator, calculating a value of the token information to be provided by the second business operator to the first business operator, based on a ratio of the point associated with the first business operator to all the points held by the customer having used the point and a value of the point that the customer has used to pay for selling by the second business operator, as taught by Choi with the sales cooperation system and method of Iijima. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Choi that doing so would effectively use points within a limit acceptable by customers who want to use points and each of the business operators [0003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0414701 to Fernandez (Fernandez) teaches an intermediary application enables loyalty program members to redeem their loyalty points or miles through purchases with a merchant different from the business entity associated with the member's loyalty program. The loyalty program can include a reimbursement that may include a commission to be paid to the Loyalty Redemption Server.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0279705 to Takemura et al. (Takemura) teaches a transaction system that manages a transaction fee rate for each denomination of money, as a transaction condition for the deposit transaction. The transaction fee rate is determined based on an incentive rate and a commission rate for each denomination. The commission rate is a rate for calculating an amount of money to be charged to the transaction partner in the transaction.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0097991 to Pistilli et al. (Pistilli) teaches a system and method for consumer rewards redemption where one or more virtual tokens are issued as a reward to a consumer. the systems and methods described herein generally relate to an underlying transaction that generates a consumer reward, sales commission, or rebate (e.g. using reward points or a dedicated debit card) that is in turn provided to the user in the form of a virtual token.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0282559 to Pappas (Pappas) teaches systems and methods for facilitating commercial transactions between a plurality of associated parties utilizing a form of currency referred to herein as "system currency" which provides economic utility to all associated parties.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0288311 to Underhill (Underhill) teaches a computer automated sales incentive program that allow companies to reward participants for sales. Partners sign-up with the Web based sales incentive program, and an operator of Web based sales incentive program receives commissions on sales on the partner sites
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 at (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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628