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 Application
This action is non-final office action in response to application 18/890,116 filed on September 19,2024. Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority filed in Japan on November 02, 2023, which, a certified copy of the instant application has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements’ (IDS) submitted on September 19, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1, 10, and 15 recites an entity that is able settle a payment fee for a user that uses certain entity facilities, which the entity can then update the facility use status. Independent Claim(s) 1, 10, and 15 as a whole recite limitation(s) that are directed to an abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging and/or mitigating risk) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations and/or sales activities) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 10, and 15, limitations of “in a linkage table, link facility information that specifies a facility being used by a user to terminal information,” “receive fee data indicating fees associated with use of the facility by the user,” “provide the fee data,” “receive a payment notification indicating that a payment of the fees has been executed,” and “execute processing for changing a use status of the facility after the payment notification is received, “ function(s)/step(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging and/or mitigating risk) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations and/or sales activities) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment)
Furthermore, as explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.). For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1, 10, and 15, are similar to an entity settling fees for the use of a facility. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: a facility management device, a storage device, a communication interface, a processor, a store server, and a mobile terminal; Claim 10: a facility management system, a plurality of store servers, a reception terminal, a payment terminal, a kitchen terminal, a station terminal, an infrastructure terminal, a storage device, a communication interface, a processor, a storage device, a store server, and a mobile terminal; and Claim 15:a storage device, a mobile terminal, a communication interface, and a store server) do not take the claims out of the enumerated group of certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1, 10, and 15, recites the above abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “receiving,” “providing,” “receiving,” and “executing,” “respectively, information in a computer environment. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: a facility management device, a storage device, a communication interface, a processor, a store server, and a mobile terminal; Claim 10: a facility management system, a plurality of store servers, a reception terminal, a payment terminal, a kitchen terminal, a station terminal, an infrastructure terminal, a storage device, a communication interface, a processor, a storage device, a store server, and a mobile terminal; and Claim 15:a storage device, a mobile terminal, a communication interface, and a store server). Examiner, notes that the facility management device, storage device, communication interface, processor, store server, mobile terminal, a plurality of store servers, a reception terminal, a payment terminal, a kitchen terminal, a station terminal, an infrastructure terminal, a storage device, a communication interface, respectively, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements are merely receiving, providing, receiving, and executing, payment information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not practical application(s) of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2, 4-9, 11, 13-14, 16, and 18-20: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 2, 4-9, 11, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim 1, 10, and 15, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3, 12, and 17: The additional limitation of describing “reading,” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described above for Independent Claim(s) 1, 10, and 15. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are the mobile terminal and reception terminal. Examiner, notes that the mobile terminal and reception terminal are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely reading information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “wherein the terminal information is reading a slip dispensed that accepts a start of use of the facility,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. Also, see electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 3, 12, and 17, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11-14, and 16-20, above 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(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR-20190056480-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim, teaches a facility management device, comprising:
A storage device. (Paragraph 0218)(Kim teaches a memory)
A communication interface configured to connect a store server. (Paragraph 0224)(Kim teaches a communication interface that connects the devices)
A processor configured to: (Paragraph 0217)(Kim teaches a processor that can perform the operations)
In a linkage table in the storage device, link facility information that specifies a facility being used by a user to terminal information that specifies a mobile terminal used by the user. (Paragraph(s) 0036-0037, 0086,and 0174-0175 )(Kim teaches a user terminal (e.g., mobile terminal used by the user) that includes an identifier such as the mobile terminal phone number. The system also includes identification information of a characteristic of the karaoke machine (e.g., facility information). The system will then pre-store the telephone number and the karaoke device identifier in the server (e.g., linkage table in the storage device))
receive fee data indicting fees associated with use of the facility by the user via the communication interface from the store server. (Paragraph(s) 0047-0048, 0086-0088, and 0099)(Kim teaches that the telephone number provided to the server includes the usage amount, the number of songs to be used, and the time of use as the karaoke machine usable information of the karaoke. Kim, also, teaches the server includes a change table that converts the number of songs and the usage time into a usage amount or a usage fee for performing payment based on the usage amount. The usage time is converted into the usage amount or the usage fee for the number of songs desired by the user, the usage time, and etc. The server can extract a requesting call)
Provide the fee data to the mobile terminal linked to the facility information of the facility in the linkage table. (Paragraph 0051 and 0104)(Kim teaches the payment server can transmit the payment request of the usage fee to the user terminal)
Receive a payment notification indicating that a payment of the fees has been executed at the mobile terminal. (Paragraph 0055)(Kim teaches that the server can receive the payment request and then decide whether or not to approve the usage fee of the payment request amount information and when the normal payment processing is completed the server will transmit an approval message to the karaoke machine)
Execute processing for changing a use status of the facility after the payment notification is received. (Paragraph(s) 0102-0103)(Kim teaches upon receiving the payment request the payment server can determine whether or not to approve the usage fee included in the payment request. Kim, further, teaches when the payment process is completed then the payment server transmits an approval completion message to the approval message. The server can the transmit an available information setting indication message or a payment completion message to the karaoke device. Kim, also, teaches the karaoke machine can check the available information setting instruction message or the payment completion message and update the available information stored in the karaoke machine. The karaoke device useable information is also updated (e.g., processing for changing a use status of the facility after the payment notification is received))
Regarding Claim 4, Kim, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a payment request via the communication interface, then check whether terminal information included with the payment request is linked to facility information in the linkage table, and permit a payment process only if the terminal information is linked to the facility information. (Paragraph(s) 0019-0020)(Kim teaches the system can receive a call request for a telephone number including an identification number of a karaoke machine from a communication company server. The telephone number includes an identification number of the karaoke machine requested to make a call, a telephone number including the extracted caller ID and an identification number of the requested karaoke machine. The system can then extract and confirm the karaoke usage fee, and perform payment processing of the karaoke use fee according to the payment requirement information of the karaoke use fee extracted and confirmed. Kim, further, teaches the system can extract and confirm the payment requirement information of the karaoke use fee by extracting and verifying the information of the user terminal or the user information associated with the user terminal from the caller information. The system can then extract and confirm the payment information required for payment of the usage fee of the karaoke room from a telephone number and performing a payment process of the karaoke fee)
Regarding Claim 9, Kim, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the communication interface is connected to a plurality of store servers and a mobile server that is configured to connect to mobile terminals of users. (Paragraph(s) 0112 and 0224)(Kim teaches a user terminal, the communication company server, the service server, the payment server, and the karaoke system are connected to each other through various networks. Kim, also, teaches that a communication interface can be used to establish communication between the electronic devices and the other external devices)
Regarding Claim 15, Kim, teaches a facility management method, comprising:
in a linkage table in the storage device, link facility information that specifies a facility being used by a user to terminal information that specifies a mobile terminal used by the user. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(c)(a))
receiving fee data indicting fees associated with use of the facility by the user via the communication interface from the store server. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(c)(b))
providing the fee data to the mobile terminal linked to the facility information of the facility in the linkage table. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(c)(c))
receiving a payment notification indicating that a payment of the fees has been executed at the mobile terminal. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(c)(d))
execute processing for changing a use status of the facility after the payment notification is received. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(c)(e))
Regarding Claim 18, Kim, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 15 and receiving a payment request via the communication interface, then check whether terminal information included with the payment request is linked to facility information in the linkage table, and permit a payment process only if the terminal information is linked to the facility information. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 4 and 15)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR-20190056480-A) in view of Saito (JP-2006234890-A).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Kim, doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the terminal information is input at a reception terminal that accepts a start of use of the facility.
But, Saito in the analogous art of karaoke terminals, teaches wherein the terminal information is input at a reception terminal that accepts a start of use of the facility. (Paragraph(s) 0010-0011, 0018, 0022, and 0026)(Saito teaches a customer ID can be inputted at a managers karaoke reception terminal (e.g., reception terminal). The customer ID can include the membership card information and/or a telephone number (e.g., terminal information). Saito, further, teaches this information can be provided to the reception terminal at the start of karaoke box use)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a payment for the usage of a karaoke system of Kim, by incorporating the teachings of a reception terminal that registers the user mobile information of Saito, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improve the karaoke box theft by detecting users that are using the karaoke box. (Saito: Paragraph(s) 0003 and 0005)
Regarding Claim 16, Kim/Saito, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 15 and wherein the terminal information is input at a reception terminal that accepts a start of use of the facility. (See, relevant rejection of Claim(s) 2 and 15)
Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR-20190056480-A) in view of Koshidaka (JP-2015064506-A)(hereinafter Kosh).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Kim, doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the terminal information is provided by the mobile terminal reading a slip dispensed from a reception terminal that accepts a start of use of the facility.
But, Kosh in the analogous art of karaoke, teaches wherein the terminal information is provided by the mobile terminal reading a slip dispensed from a reception terminal that accepts a start of use of the facility. (Paragraph(s) 0030-0032)(Kosh teaches a session ID can be generated, which the session ID includes the karaoke identification information. The karaoke identification information includes a QR code printed on a slip that is printed from the reception terminal. The customer terminal can then read the bar code on the slip)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a payment for the usage of a karaoke system of Kim, by incorporating the teachings of a terminal that is able to scan a slip to retrieve karaoke information of Kosh, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improve user convenience. (Kosh: Paragraph(s) 0036)
Regarding Claim 17, Kim/Kosh, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 15 and wherein the terminal information is provided by the mobile terminal reading a slip dispensed from a reception terminal that accepts a start of use of the facility. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 3 and 15)
Claim(s) 5-8 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR-20190056480-A) in view of Ito (JP-2010112982-A).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Kim, doesn’t explicitly wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a merchandise order request from the mobile terminal via the communication interface, then check whether terminal information included with the merchandise order request is linked to facility information in the linkage table and accept a merchandise order only if the terminal information is linked to facility information.
But, Ito in the analogous art of karaoke, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a merchandise order request from the mobile terminal via the communication interface, then check whether terminal information included with the merchandise order request is linked to facility information in the linkage table and accept a merchandise order only if the terminal information is linked to facility information. (Page 4, “When the authentication is successful…,” and “When the authentication is successful, the portable terminal…,”); (Page 7, “S12: The mobile terminal…,” and “S13: The order output means 13…,”)(Ito teaches the mobile terminal can receive a product and the quantity of the ordered product, which is then transmitted to the karaoke apparatus (e.g., receive a merchandise order request). The order output unit will sets the value of the user ID field as the user ID “0901111XXX” stored in the storage device by the authentication unit. The system will then set the value of the item ID field as the received item ID, and set the value of the quantity field as the value. A record with the received quantity is added to the order table. Here, the order output means 13 will receive the user ID again from the portable terminal 2 together with the order information (i.e., check whether terminal information included with the merchandise order request is linked)(e.g., then check whether terminal information included with the merchandise order request is linked to facility information in the linkage table and accept a merchandise order only if the terminal information is linked to facility information). Ito, further, teaches the order output means will display the received order information on a display device installed in a kitchen or the like (e.g., accept a merchandise order only if the terminal information is linked to facility information). Ito, also, teaches the system can perform the authentication and determine if that authentication is successful. Once the authentication is successful then the terminal can order food and the like (i.e., merchandise)(e.g., accept a merchandise order))
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a payment for the usage of a karaoke system of Kim, by incorporating the teachings of verifying a food order, which the system can then provide the food order to the kitchen and the user can then continue to order the food of Ito, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improve the function of the karaoke equipment so it operates smoothly. (Ito: Page 3, “According to the invention, when the authentication…,”)
Regarding Claim 6, Kim/Ito, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 5.
However, Kim, doesn’t explicitly wherein the fees associated with use of the facility includes merchandise orders of the user entered while using the facility.
But, Ito in the analogous art of karaoke, teaches wherein the fees associated with use of the facility includes merchandise orders of the user entered while using the facility. (Page 7, “S22: The fee calculation means 14…,”)(Ito teaches the system can calculate a fee based on extracting from the order table a record whose user ID field value matches the user ID stored in the storage device by the authentication means. The fee calculation extracts from the item writing table a record whose item ID field value matches the item ID value of the record extracted from the order table. The system can determine an item value based on the unit price of the item and the quantity of the item, which the item value will be 1700 yen (e.g., fees includes merchandise orders of the user entered while using the facility). The system calculates the karaoke usage fee by multiplying the karaoke usage unit price per hour stored in the storage device in advance by the time from when authentication is successful until the account request is received, which the karaoke usage fee can be calculated as 1500 yen. The fee calculation sets the amount of usage for the karaoke is 3200 yen which includes the item price)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a payment for the usage of a karaoke system of Kim, by incorporating the teachings of calculating a payment for the usage of the karaoke machine, which the fees include the food/drink order of Ito, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improve the function of the karaoke equipment so it operates smoothly. (Ito: Page 3, “According to the invention, when the authentication…,”)
Regarding Claim 7, Kim, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Kim, doesn’t explicitly wherein the fees associated with use of the facility includes merchandise orders of the user entered while using the facility.
But, Ito in the analogous art of karaoke, teaches wherein the fees associated with use of the facility includes merchandise orders of the user entered while using the facility. (Page 7, “S22: The fee calculation means 14…,”)(Ito teaches the system can calculate a fee based on extracting from the order table a record whose user ID field value matches the user ID stored in the storage device by the authentication means. The fee calculation extracts from the item writing table a record whose item ID field value matches the item ID value of the record extracted from the order table. The system can determine an item value based on the unit price of the item and the quantity of the item, which the item value will be 1700 yen (e.g., fees includes merchandise orders of the user entered while using the facility). The system calculates the karaoke usage fee by multiplying the karaoke usage unit price per hour stored in the storage device in advance by the time from when authentication is successful until the account request is received, which the karaoke usage fee can be calculated as 1500 yen. The fee calculation sets the amount of usage for the karaoke is 3200 yen which includes the item price)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a payment for the usage of a karaoke system of Kim, by incorporating the teachings of calculating a payment for the usage of the karaoke machine, which the fees include the food/drink order of Ito, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improve the function of the karaoke equipment so it operates smoothly. (Ito: Page 3, “According to the invention, when the authentication…,”)
Regarding Claim 8, Kim/Ito, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 7 and wherein the communication interface is connected to a plurality of store servers and a mobile server that is configured to connect to mobile terminals of users. (Paragraph 0112 and 0224)(Kim teaches a user terminal, the communication company server, the service server, the payment server, and the karaoke system are connected to each other through various networks. Kim, also, teaches that a communication interface can be used to establish communication between the electronic devices and the other external devices)
Regarding Claim 19, Kim/Ito, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 15 and receiving a merchandise order request from the mobile terminal via the communication interface, then checking whether terminal information included with the merchandise order request is linked to facility information in the linkage table and accepting a merchandise order only if the terminal information is linked to facility information. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 5 and 15)
Regarding Claim 20, Kim/Ito, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 15 and wherein the fees associated with use of the facility includes merchandise orders of the user entered while using the facility. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 6 and 15)
Claim(s) 10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR-20190056480-A) in view of Ito (JP-201012982-A) and further in view of Koshidaka (JP-2015064506-A)(hereinafter Kosh).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim, teaches a facility management system, comprising:
a plurality of store servers at plurality of facility locations, each store server
an infrastructure terminal including:
A storage device. (Paragraph 0218)(Kim teaches a memory)
A communication interface configured to connect a store server. (Paragraph 0224)(Kim teaches a communication interface that connects the devices)
A processor configured to: (Paragraph 0217)(Kim teaches a processor that can perform the operations)
in a linkage table in the storage device, link facility information that specifies a facility being used by a user to terminal information that specifies a mobile terminal used by the user. (Paragraph(s) 0036-0037, 0086, and 0174-0175)(Kim teaches a user terminal (e.g., mobile terminal used by the user) that includes an identifier such as the mobile terminal phone number. The system also includes identification information of a characteristic of the karaoke machine (e.g., facility information). The system will then pre-store the telephone number and the karaoke device identifier in the server (e.g., linkage table in the storage device))
receive fee data indicting fees associated with use of the facility by the user via the communication interface from the store server. (Paragraph(s) 0047-0048, 0086-0088, and 0099)(Kim teaches that the telephone number provided to the server includes the usage amount, the number of songs to be used, and the time of use as the karaoke machine usable information of the karaoke. Kim, also, teaches the server includes a change table that converts the number of songs and the usage time into a usage amount or a usage fee for performing payment based on the usage amount. The usage time is converted into the usage amount or the usage fee for the number of songs desired by the user, the usage time, and etc. The server can extract a requesting call)
provide the fee data to the mobile terminal linked to the facility information of the facility in the linkage table. (Paragraph 0051 and 0104)(Kim teaches the payment server can transmit the payment request of the usage fee to the user terminal) can be transmitted to the user terminal
receive a payment notification indicating that a payment of the fees has been executed at the mobile terminal. (Paragraph 0055)(Kim teaches that the server can receive the payment request and then decide whether or not to approve the usage fee of the payment request amount information and when the normal payment processing is completed the server will transmit an approval message to the karaoke machine)
execute processing for changing a use status of the facility after the payment notification is received. (Paragraph(s) 0102-0103)(Kim teaches upon receiving the payment request the payment server can determine whether or not to approve the usage fee included in the payment request. Kim, further, teaches when the payment process is completed then the payment server transmits an approval completion message to the approval message. The server can the transmit an available information setting indication message or a payment completion message to the karaoke device. Kim, also, teaches the karaoke machine can check the available information setting instruction message or the payment completion message and update the available information stored in the karaoke machine. The karaoke device useable information is updated (e.g., processing for changing a use status of the facility after the payment notification is received))
With respect to the above limitations: while Kim teaches a karaoke system that includes servers and a mobile terminal, which the system can terminal data to determine a payment for the use of a karaoke machine. However, Kim, doesn’t explicitly teach a store server locally connected to a reception terminal, a kitchen terminal, and a station terminal.
But, Ito in the analogous art of karaoke, teaches store server locally connected, a kitchen terminal, and a station terminal. (Page 3, “The karaoke apparatus 1…,”); (Page 4, “The store server…,”)(Ito teaches a store server which is connected to a mobile terminal via a communication network. Ito, further, teaches display device (e.g., kitchen terminal) installed in a kitchen that can receive the order information. Ito, also, teaches an order table (e.g., station terminal) that stores the user ID of the user and the product ID of the ordered product. The order table can also store the product ID of the ordered product and the quantity of the ordered product. Examiner, respectfully, notes that based on BRI and applicant’s specification, see paragraph 0033, which recites “The station 15 manages the information of the food and drink menu item(s) ordered by the user of the karaoke box. The station 15 stores the information of the food and drink menu item ordered by the user on a per karaoke box user basis…,” thus based on the order table storing and managing order information therefore reading on applicant’s above limitation)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a payment for the usage of a karaoke system of Kim, by incorporating the teachings of a store server, a kitchen terminal, and an order table that are in communication with each other of Ito, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improve the function of the karaoke equipment so it operates smoothly. (Ito: Page 3, “According to the invention, when the authentication…,”)
With respect to the above limitations: while Ito teaches a karaoke system that includes a store server, a kitchen terminal, and an order table. However, Kim and Ito, do not explicitly teach a store server locally connected to a reception terminal.
But, Kosh in the analogous art of karaoke, teaches a reception terminal. (Paragraph 0027)(Kosh teaches a store router is connected to a communication line from the center and the router is connected to the wireless reception terminal device (e.g., reception terminal))
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a payment for the usage of a karaoke system of Kim and a store server, a kitchen terminal, and an order table that are in communication with each other of Ito, by incorporating the teachings of a reception terminal that is in communication with a store router of Kosh, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improve user convenience. (Kosh: Paragraph(s) 0036)
Regarding Claim 12, Kim/Ito/Kosh, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 10 and wherein the terminal information is provided by the mobile terminal reading a slip dispensed from a reception terminal that accepts a start of use of the facility. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 3 and 10)
Regarding Claim 13, Kim/Ito/Kosh, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 10 and wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a payment request via the communication interface, then check whether terminal information included with the payment request is linked to facility information in the linkage table, and permit a payment process only if the terminal information is linked to the facility information. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 4 and 10)
Regarding Claim 14, Kim/Ito/Kosh, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 10 and wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a merchandise order request from the mobile terminal via the communication interface, then check whether terminal information included with the merchandise order request is linked to facility information in the linkage table and accept a merchandise order only if the terminal information is linked to facility information. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 5 and 10)
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR-20190056480-A) in view of Ito (JP-201012982-A) and Kosh (JP-2015064506-A) and further in view of Saito (JP-2006234890-A).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim/Ito/Kosh/Saito, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 10 and wherein the terminal information is input at the reception terminal that accepts a start of use of the facility. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 2 and 10)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“How do karaoke boxes work,” May 6, 2022, (hereinafter Karaoke). Karaoke teaches a private karaoke room, suite, and/or lounge. The karaoke facility can be rented for a period of time. The karaoke boxes are self-operated. A user can scan a QR code to access the music list after a receptionist shows the guest the room and provides quick explanations of how the karaoke box works. Karaoke, further, teaches a session timer can be set up automatically and track and alert the guest to the remaining time to sing. Karaoke, also, teaches that the karaoke box venues offer in-room food and beverage service, which the system will display a menu in the room and hook up an order system in order to directly receive the orders at the bar.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628