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 .
1. Claims 1-15 filed 11/27/2024 are pending for examination.
2. Continuity: This application filed 11/27/2024 is a Continuation of PCT/JP2024/020497 , filed 06/05/2024 claims foreign priority to 2023-093045, filed 06/06/2023 claims foreign priority to 2023-116003, filed 07/14/2023.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
3. 1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (FP 7.30.03)
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. (FP 7.30.05)
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 10, a storage unit that stores a user's purchase state of a product; and a management unit that manages the purchase state. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The storage unit , see Specification paragraphs 0039, and 0041 describe the storage unit 12 as a storage device comprising, “ a memory, an HDD (Hard Disk Drive), and an SSD (Solid State Drive).”, as part of information processing apparatus which includes “a processor 11 such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit) corresponding to an arithmetic unit, a storage device 12, a communication device 13, and an input/output device 14.”, which is considered as a sufficient structure to perform the claimed function). Similarly, the “management unit”, see Specification paragraph 0045 and Fig.4 describe the management unit 104 as being processed by a processor 11 which is a component of a sever 10 is considered as a sufficient structure to perform the claimed function).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-13 are to a system, clam 14 to a process, and claim 15 to manufacture, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. An information processing system comprising:
(i) a storage unit that stores a user's purchase state of a product; and
(ii) a management unit that manages the purchase state, and
(iii) when information on the product for the user is read at a store, stores the purchase state of the product in the storage unit with the purchase state set to an unpurchased state,
(iv) wherein the management unit determines whether or not a first condition has been satisfied after the product has been set to the unpurchased state, and
(v) when it is determined that the first condition has been satisfied, updates the purchase state of the product stored in the storage unit from the unpurchased state to a purchased state.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-15 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations of claim 1, comprising, “ stores a user's purchase state of a product; and a management unit that manages the purchase state, and when information on the product for the user is read at a store, stores the purchase state of the product in the storage unit with the purchase state set to an unpurchased state, wherein the management unit determines whether or not a first condition has been satisfied after the product has been set to the unpurchased state, and when it is determined that the first condition has been satisfied, updates the purchase state of the product stored in the storage unit from the unpurchased state to a purchased state. “, as recited, relates to a commercial activity of managing purchase states of an item in a store including updating the unpurchased state on fulfilment of a condition, and . fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. Thus, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-13 recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”
The highlighted limitations comprising, “ manages the purchase state, when information on the product for the user is read at a store, stores the purchase state of the product with the purchase state set to an unpurchased state, wherein the management determines whether or not a first condition has been satisfied after the product has been set to the unpurchased state, and when it is determined that the first condition has been satisfied, updates the purchase state of the product stored in the storage unit from the unpurchased state to a purchased state. “, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. In these limitations, other than reciting “by a computer/ processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the by a person manually. For example, but for the “by the computer/processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected relating to a purchase state of a product whether an unpurchased and forming a simple judgement and manual step of updating the purchase state based on a condition is fulfilled. The mere nominal recitation of by a controller/processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-13 recite a mental process.
Since the other two independent claims 14 and 15 recite similar limitations as claim 1, they are analyzed on the same basis reciting, “ Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and “Mental Processes”.
Since each of the claims 1-15 recite limitations falling under two separate groupings of abstract ideas, the Supreme Court (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)) has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Accordingly, limitations considered under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-15: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of using generic computer components comprising a generic computer server communicating with a generic computer devices comprising a storage unit and management unit : (i) a storage unit that stores a user's purchase state of a product; and (ii) a management unit that manages the purchase state, and (iii) when information on the product for the user is read at a store, stores the purchase state of the product in the storage unit with the purchase state set to an unpurchased state, (iv) wherein the management unit determines whether or not a first condition has been satisfied after the product has been set to the unpurchased state, and (v) when it is determined that the first condition has been satisfied, updates the purchase state of the product stored in the storage unit from the unpurchased state to a purchased state.
The limitations in steps (i) and (iii) recite storing data related to a user’s purchase state of a product are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing purchase state of a product] and amounts to mere pre or post solution storing which is a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. In the limitations in steps (ii), (iv) and (v), the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Since the other two independent claims 14 and 15 recite similar limitations as claim 1, they are analyzed on the same basis being directed to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-13 merely expand the scope of claim 1 of storing data and managing data. Limitations in claims 2-3, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, recite non-functional descriptive data, limitations in claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 recite storing data and making determinations, which fall within “Mental Processes, and limitations in claim 10 recite receiving data and outputting data which are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements in the dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 2-13 are directed to the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements in claim 12-13 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 2-13 are directed to an abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements in claims 1-15 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A=Yes. Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-15 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
As per MPEP 2106 , a conclusion that an additional element or elements is/are extra-solution activity, or are well-understood, conventional and routine activity in step 2A should be re-evaluated in step 2B. Additional elements comprising of storing , receiving and outputting data, were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/ presenting/storing data . However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). ). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/ presenting/storing data .steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements in claims 1-20 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). Claims 1-15, as recited, are patent indelible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 14-15 re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. [US 20190325456 A1], hereinafter Cheng.
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches an information processing system comprising:
(i) a storage unit that stores a user's purchase state of a product [See Cheng para 0026, “ Information stored in product database 115 such as product experiences, purchase status, service status, and/or registration information can be provided by product entity 130. …… information relevant to product experience data, purchase status, service status, and/or registration information.; and(ii) a management unit that manages the purchase state [See para 0027, “ information regarding the status of a product as unpurchased, purchased, registered, serviced, etc. can additionally or alternatively be recorded into a memory associated with the tag associated with the device. …….In such embodiments, a retailer point of sale device can be configured to update a product status by communicating with the tag…..’. Here the information of product state of purchase is read from the tag on the product in the store.]I, and
(iii) when information on the product for the user is read at a store, stores the purchase state of the product in the storage unit with the purchase state set to an unpurchased state [See para 0027 cited above “ information regarding the status of a product as unpurchased, purchased, registered, serviced, etc. can additionally or alternatively be recorded into a memory associated with the tag associated with the device. …….In such embodiments, a retailer point of sale device can be configured to update a product status by communicating with the tag…..’. Here the information of product state of purchase is read from the tag on the product in the store.], “ ,
(iv & V)wherein the management unit determines whether or not a first condition has been satisfied after the product has been set to the unpurchased state [paras 0026 and 0039 teach that if a condition such as the product is purchased the information is updated from the unpurchased state to purchased state, and when it is determined that the first condition has been satisfied, updates the purchase state of the product stored in the storage unit from the unpurchased state to a purchased state [Se para 0026, “ A retailer of product 120 can provide information regarding purchase status and can update product database 115 when a purchase status is changed from unpurchased to purchased. A product servicer can provide information regarding servicing of product 120 for recording in product database 115.. ….[ 0039] In some embodiments, information pertaining to products purchased in association with a user account is stored locally on client device 102 or other client devices associated with the user account. In some embodiments, information pertaining to products purchased in association with the user account can be encrypted and stored on a server that is accessible by client device 102.’
Regarding claim 2. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the first condition includes that an order instruction of a product has been newly received from the user [See Cheng para 0052, “ In some embodiments the interface on client device 102 may provide options for viewing post-purchase experience 317, reporting the product lost, purchasing the product again, …….. ordering replacement parts, ……….”]. The first condition can relate to an ordering instruction for a replacement part or purchasing a product again in a store ,which can end up changing the product state from unpurchased to purchased state.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations, “ The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the first condition includes that the order instruction has been received for the same product as a product with the purchase state set to the unpurchased state.”, are covered by paragraph 0052 cited above for claim 2, wherein the ordering instruction can be to purchase the product again.
Regarding claims 5, Cheng teaches that the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the storage unit further stores purchase history information indicating products which have been purchased by the user before, and the management unit determines a product that satisfies a predetermined matching condition from among the products included in the purchase history information as a product to be delivered to the user with the purchase state set to the unpurchased state [See claim 4, “ The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause a computing system to: prior to displaying the pre-purchase product experience, determine if the product identified at the first time is compatible with any products previously purchased by a user account; when it is determined that the product identified at the first time is compatible with a previously purchased product, identify the previously purchased product in the purchase experience. “. The stored information includes history/information on previously purchased products, which enables comparing and determining a condition that purchasing a new product is compatible to previously purchased is satisfied .
Regarding claim 6, the limitations, “ The information processing system according to claim 5, wherein the predetermined matching condition is a condition of being a product selected by the user from a plurality of products included in the purchase history information. “ are already covered in the analysis of claim 5 wherein the new product being purchased is compared to determine if it is compatible.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations, “ The information processing system according to claim 5, wherein the predetermined matching condition is that the product has the highest priority when a plurality of products included in the purchase history information are sorted according to a predetermined sorting condition”. are already covered in the analysis of claim 5 wherein the new product being purchased is compared to determine if it is compatible with the new product being purchased because comparing compatibility with the previously purchased item should the highest priority for sorting function.
Regarding claim 8, Cheng teaches that the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the management unit determines the same product as a product for which purchase registration has been performed by the user as a product to be delivered to the user with the purchase state set to the unpurchased state, regardless of whether or not an order instruction from the user has been received [See para 0026, “[0026] Information stored in product database 115 such as product experiences, purchase status, service status, and/or registration information can be provided by product entity 130. Product entity 130 can be a product manufacturer, product retailer, and/or product servicer that has information relevant to product experience data, purchase status, service status, and/or registration information. For example, a manufacturer of product 120 can provide one or more items of product experience data for storage in product database 115. A manufacturer of product 120 can also provide information regarding a registration of a product by a purchaser to product database 115. “].
Regarding claims 14-15, their limitations are similar to the limitations of claim 1, and they are analyzed and rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
6.1. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of KR 20070053590A, hereinafter KR’590A.
Regarding claim 4, Cheng teaches all the limitations of claim including recording the product state as purchased or unpurchased and updating the product state when there is a change based on a criterion, but does not specify that the storage unit further stores information on a product time limit of the product, and the first condition includes that a period until the product time limit of the product with the purchase state set to the unpurchased state satisfies a second condition. KR’590 teachings “ According to the method of the present invention, the information storing step, when storing the product purchase reservation information, it is preferable to further store a predetermined product purchase time limit information, the information extraction / confirmation step is the product of the customer purchase reservation The method may further include comparing the purchase request time with the previously stored product purchase time information and determining whether the customer purchase reservation time of the product is included in the product purchase time limit.” are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the applicant recites storing information set to unpurchased on a product time limit until a second condition occurs and KR’ 590 teaches the same concept. Therefore, in view of the teachings of KR’590 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Cheng teachings to incorporate concept of storing information on a product time limit of the product, and the first condition includes that a period until the product time limit of the product with the purchase state set to the unpurchased state satisfies a second condition, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
7. Allowability:
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 5 which depends from claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims 1 and 5 and any intervening claims and by amending independent claims 1, 14, and 15 to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection. Reference claim 9, the prior art of record, alone or combined including Cheng et al. [US 20190325456 A1], hereinafter Cheng, KR 20070053590A, hereinafter KR’590A, Ross et al. [ US Patent 11, 100, 524 B1] and WO 2022102141 A1 neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations comprising, “ wherein the storage unit further stores a model generated based on machine learning using purchase history information of each user and a product recommended for each user as learning data, and the management unit determines a result when the purchase history information including the information on the purchase date of the user is input to the model as a product that satisfies the predetermined matching condition.”.
Claims 10-13 [Claims 11-13 depend from claim 10] are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim 1 and any intervening claims and by amending independent claims 1, 14, and 15 to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection. Reference claims 10-13, the prior art of record, alone or combined including Cheng et al. [US 20190325456 A1], hereinafter Cheng, KR 20070053590A, hereinafter KR’590A and Ross et al. [ US Patent 11, 100, 524 B1] Croak et al [US Patent 11,210,731 B1], hereinafter Croak, and the Non-Patent reference Tomar neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations comprising, “determines a purchase price of the product at a lowest selling price of the product in a predetermined period with reference to predetermined timing related to purchase of the product by referring to a first storage unit that stores information on a selling price of the product; and an output unit that outputs information on the purchase price determined by the determination unit.”.
Note: Any amendments will be subject to further reconsideration and search.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(i) Ross et al. [ US Patent 11,100, 524 B1; see claim 12] describes predictive machine learning models targets likelihood of purchasing one of the respective products from the set of products, and each of the component predictive machine learning models determines a respective one of the set of product purchase ranks, wherein the customer purchase history information for each of the plurality of customer records includes an initial product purchase from the set of products, and a date of the initial product purchase, and wherein the predictive machine learning model is continuously trained using updated customer profile data and updated customer purchase history information; and updating, by the processor, the plurality of customer records in the customer database to indicate whether the respective customer record is included in the target group or is included in the non-target group.
(ii) Croak et al. [US Patent# 11210731 B1; see claim 3] describes a system wherein a mobile device is configured to determine the distance from the current location of the mobile device to the seller offering the product for the lowest price in response to receiving a request to determine the distance to the seller that offers the product for the lowest price.
Foreign references:
(iii) WO 2022102141 A1 describes providing a storage product list in each storage device 100 and storing information such as the product ID and the purchase status, and the purchase status indicates either unpurchased or purchased. In this example, it is shown that four kinds of lunch boxes having the product IDs LB01, LB02, LB03 and LB04 are housed in the storage device 100a having the storage device ID ST001. The product 104 of LB01 and LB02 indicates that it has not been purchased and can be purchased at this time, and the product 104 of LB03 and LB04 indicates that it has been purchased and cannot be purchased at this time. The storage notification includes the data of the product barcode 118 of the stored product 104 and the used clerk ticket.
(iv) JP 7237393 B1 teaches that a management server after determining that a payment has been made for a purchased item it updates the purchase state information for the specific item.
NPL reference:
(v) A. Khanna and R. Tomar, "IoT based interactive shopping ecosystem," 2016 2nd International Conference on Next Generation Computing Technologies (NGCT), Dehradun, India, 2016, pp. 40-45, retrieved from IP. Com on 05122026, hereinafter Tomar, describes , see page 41, describes that Cloud acts as the storage and processing unit, and all requests coming from the customer are addressed at the cloud end, wherein it also keeps track of all the stores located in a shopping complex along with the details of every product being available at respective stores. The cloud maintains database where information pertaining to every product such as product ID, product name, date of manufacture, name of manufacture, cost of the product, any special discount being offered on that product, shelf life, payment info and its RFID tag serial number and during the process of purchasing a product, scanned serial numbers are sent to the cloud along with their payment details and when the purchase has been made RFID readers are informed about it and asked to update the product status of respective products.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights