DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1-17 are considered in this Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/7/2024 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claims 1, 16, and 17 recite the limitations of “discriminate whether the response to each of the areas is good or bad based on a detection result” and “determine a use condition for each of the areas based on whether the response is good or bad”. It is unclear what “good and bad” would be, as the metes and bounds of this are unclear, and the specification is silent as to what “good or bad” would be, and this would differ person to person as to what is “good” and what is “bad”. For examination purposes the term quickly will be taken as any “response to each of the areas” regardless of whether it is good or bad.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of independent claims they rely on and thus are similarly rejected.
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.
Alice - Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 16, and 17 recite limitations to acquire operation information of a customer for at least one of a display device and a product shelf installed in a store and lent to a rental destination operator, the display device and the product shelf exhibiting a product by the rental destination operator (Collecting Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing rentals; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), detect a response of the customer to each of at least one area of the display device and the product shelf based on the operation information (Collecting and Analyzing the Information, an Observation and Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing rentals; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), discriminate whether the response to each of the areas is good or bad based on a detection result (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing rentals; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determine a use condition for each of the areas based on whether the response is good or bad (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing rentals; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and output the use condition (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, a Judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing rentals; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing rentals, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a store rental support device, memory, processor, display device, computer, and medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Managing Human Behavior. For example, discriminating whether the response to each of the areas is good or bad based on a detection result and determining a use condition for each of the areas based on whether the response is good or bad encompasses a supervisor or manager deciding whether rental areas are good or bad based on the condition of the rental or other factors, which is an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Human Behavior, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The computer, support device, display device, memory, processor, and medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“Some or all of the components of each device or system are achieved by general-purpose or dedicated circuitry including a processor or the like, or a combination thereof.”
Which shows that any generic computer can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the devices, processor, memory, etc., nor the receiving or transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-15 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaser (U.S. Publication No. 2024/011,2138) in view of Ishiyama (U.S. Publication No. 2022/012,2366).
Regarding Claims 1, 16, and 17, Glaser, a system and method for a digitally managed shelf space marketplace, teaches
acquire operation information of a customer for at least one of a display device ([0038] system tracks events such as picking up and looking at item, RFID information, etc.)
detect a response of the customer to each of at least one area of the display device and the product shelf based on the operation information ([0038] user interactions are tracked using a monitoring system which monitors a shelf and [0044-46] tracks viewing an item, item pickup, if an item is purchased, etc.), and a product shelf installed in a store and lent to a rental destination operator, the display device and the product shelf exhibiting a product by the rental destination operator ([0028] small businesses and operators can rent out shelf space in the store)
discriminate whether the response to each of the areas is good or bad based on a detection result ([0045] monitoring and discerning that a product was picked up, looked at and then purchased is a good result, and thus the system is determining good or bad)
output the use condition ([0069] the condition is updated and an output of available is changed)
Although Glaser teaches operators renting out space in a retail area on shelves as above and to determine a use condition for each of the areas based on whether the response is good or bad ([0045-46] the purchase is a good result), it does not explicitly state an explicit condition of the item.
Ishiyama, an electrical product management system and method, teaches a store rental support device comprising: a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors ([0040] system, device, with a screen, memory, medium and [0042] processor) configured to execute the instructions to:
determine a use condition for each of the areas based on whether the response is good or bad ([0068-69] condition of the product is determined); and
output the use condition ([0069] the condition is updated and an output of available is changed)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rental system using quality and other such information for a rental system of Glaser with the use and operation information of a customer and product of the rental system of Ishiyama as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to renting items to consumers, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would decrease costs though identification and better management of the products as taught in [0084] of Ishiyama.
Examiner notes Ishiyama teaches a computer and computer-readable medium ([0040] system/computer, device, with a screen, memory, medium and [0042] processor).
Examiner also notes Ishyama teaches the limitations of
acquire operation information of a customer for at least one of a display device ([0049] necessary operation displayed on a screen display unit about the rental)
detect a response of the customer to each of at least one area of the display device and the product shelf based on the operation information ([0049-52] operations needed to be performed by the customer is displayed on the screen, which the user must respond to the system which is based on [0041] information is received based on the rental being received and the rentals condition);
discriminate whether the response to each of the areas is good or bad based on a detection result ([0041] information is received based on the rental being received and the rentals condition which is good or bad).
Regarding Claim 2, Glaser teaches wherein the use condition is a use condition for the rental destination operator who has lent the area ([0028] small businesses and operators can rent out shelf space in the store based on sensor input as in [0039-40])
Regarding Claim 3, Glaser teaches wherein the use condition for each of the areas is a use condition for new rental to the rental destination operator for each of the areas ([0044-46] rental area uses a CV monitoring system as conditions to use the area for renting)
Regarding Claim 4, Glaser teaches to: determine in such a way that the use condition becomes better for the rental destination operator as a response of the customer is better with respect to an exhibit of the area lent to the rental destination operator ([0044-46] rental area uses a CV monitoring system as conditions to use the area for renting and the system, and this system monitors to [0045] determine if there is a purchase, and this information is used with [0214] where a price per amount of products stocked, region, which is the area lent to the rental destination operator. [0224-227] teaches this too)
Regarding Claim 5, Glaser teaches to: determine in such a way that the use condition becomes better for the rental source operator, the rental source operator being a business operator lending at least one of the display device and the product shelf, as a response of the customer is better with respect to the area ([0044-46] rental area uses a CV monitoring system as conditions to use the area for renting and the system, and this system monitors to [0045] determine if there is a purchase, and this information is used with [0214] where a price per amount of products stocked, region, which is the area lent to the rental destination operator. [0224-227] teaches this too)
Regarding Claim 6, Glaser teaches to: discriminate that a response of a customer is better as a response of the customer with respect to the area is greater ([0101-102] better management responses and fulfillment)
Regarding Claim 7, Glaser teaches wherein a response of the customer to the area is at least one of a line of sight of a customer facing the area, a customer staying in front of the area, operating the area of the display device, and picking up a product displayed on the product shelf ([0038] user interactions are tracked using a monitoring system which monitors a shelf and [0044-46] tracks viewing an item, item pickup, if an item is purchased, etc.).
Regarding Claim 8, Glaser teaches to: discriminate that a response of the customer is better as a matching degree between a ratio of an attribute of a customer showing a response to the area and a ratio of an attribute set by the rental source operator is higher ([0086] performance driven market places where a rentee wants 3000 positive impressions and performance is judged based on executing that target, and [0181] a usage value is indicative of a ratio for usage)
Regarding Claim 9, Glaser teaches to: discriminate that a response of the customer is better as a number of customers who have purchased a product in a store of the rental source operator in which at least one of the display device and the product shelf is installed increases, among customers shown a response to the area ([0044-46] rental area uses a CV monitoring system as conditions to use the area for renting and the system, and this system monitors to [0045] determine if there is a purchase, and this information is used with [0214] where a price per amount of products stocked, region, which is the area lent to the rental destination operator. [0224-227] teaches this too)
Regarding Claim 10, Glaser teaches to: determine the use condition based on information indicating whether the response is good or bad and presence or absence of a business operator who wishes to rent the area ([0044-46] rental area uses a CV monitoring system as conditions to use the area for renting and the system, and this system monitors to [0045] determine if there is a purchase, which is if it is good or bad and the operator being there and managing as in [0032] and in [0092] the operator can be remote and just monitor)
Regarding Claim 11, Glaser teaches to: determine the use condition based on a response of the customer and rental wish information that is information of an exhibit of a business operator who wishes to rent the area ([0016] and [0088] Product relevance may be a metric calculated based on a comparison of product information of the bid's associated product and currently, previously, and/or statistically likely adjacent products; product quality score (e.g., newness of product, sales history, performance history, similar product scores), brand quality score (e.g., sales history of all brand products, performance history of all brand products), and/or other factors expanding assessment of bid beyond just the bid price)
Regarding Claim 12, Glaser teaches wherein the operation information of the customer is a video obtained by photographing the customer around a display device or a shelf ([0048] video cameras take images of customers)
Regarding Claim 13, Glaser teaches wherein the operation information of the customer is information indicating an operation history of a display device ([0055] historical information of the operation/item are used)
Regarding Claim 14, Glaser teaches wherein the use condition is an update condition that is a use condition in a case where rental of the area to the rental destination operator is updated ([0113] the conditions and the map of the display and shelving are updated based on case information)
Regarding Claim 15, Glaser teaches wherein the update condition is at least one of a priority of the update, availability of the update, and a fee for the update ([0115] fulfillment cost is used to update information)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and any other rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240112138 A1
Glaser; William et al.
DIGITALLY MANAGED SHELF SPACE MARKETPLACE
US 20230306500 A1
Coker; Mark Charles et al.
PRODUCT RELEASE SYSTEM, METHOD AND DEVICE HAVING A CUSTOMIZABLE PREPURCHASE FUNCTION
US 20220374929 A1
BRONICKI; Youval et al.
IDENTIFYING PRODUCTS FROM ON-SHELF SENSOR DATA AND VISUAL DATA
US 20220138810 A1
Oehler; Ryan T. et al.
TRANSPORT USE DETERMINATION
US 20220122366 A1
ISHIYAMA; Rui et al.
ELECTRICAL PRODUCT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
US 20160342939 A1
Jones; Nicholaus A. et al.
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR UTILIZING CUSTOMER ACTIONS FOR STORE INTELLIGENCE AND MANAGEMENT
US 20250029175 A1
LIN; Hong-Rong
DIVERSIFIED SYSTEM SHARED RENTAL DEVICE AND METHOD
US 20240255961 A1
KONDO; Yutaka et al.
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE, CONVEYANCE OBJECT, AND CONTROL METHOD FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE
US 20240194003 A1
Reed; Jason et al.
OPERATOR PROFILE BASED SYSTEM
US 20240087005 A1
Harvey; Brian N. et al.
INCENTIVIZING AND/OR PENALIZING VEHICLE RENTERS BASED ON TELEMATICS DATA
US 20230177593 A1
Afkhami; Omid
All in one rentals and services app
US 20140128023 A1
Guerra; Benjamin
APPARATUS FOR DISPENSING RENTED WIRELESS DEVICES FOR INTERNET ACCESS VIA A LOCAL AREA NETWORK (LAN)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM 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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683 12/17/2025