DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment under 37 CFR 1.111 (“Response”), filed 17 July 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. However, Applicant's arguments filed in the Response with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The “at least one memory”, “at least one processor”, “a sales server device”, “a management device”, “an electronic market” and “a computer communication network” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the calculating, changing and determining steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the acquiring step). 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.
Using computers to apply commonplace ideas-such as generating price quotes-is not a patentable invention, even if the computer is able to handle volumes and complexity at levels impossible for humans. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2350 ("Neither stating an abstract idea while adding the words 'apply it,' nor limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, is enough for patent eligibility." (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mayo,132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-611). Simply utilizing a generic networked computer system to acquire, calculate, determine or change information and to perform conventional inventory calculations faster and more efficiently is not enough to transform a patentineligible claim into a patent-eligible invention. See Bancorp Servs. LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding a claim not patent-eligible when “the computer simply performs more efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished manually”); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int' l Trade Comm' n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly . . . .”). Nearly every computer has the capability of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. At most, the computer implementation involved in the claims at issue here is an attempt to limit use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. That, however, is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See id. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11; Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-13 are directed to acquiring viewing history information, calculating a number of out-of-stock views, calculating a number of leaving operations, determining whether or not to change a degree of replenishment, changing the degree of replenishment and determining whether or not the degree of replenishment is changed which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 6 and 7) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A management device, comprising:
at least one memory configured to store program code; and
at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code, the
program code including:
viewing history acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire viewing history information indicating a viewing history by a user to a product sold in a store in an electronic market, the viewing history information being received from a sales server device, distinct from the management device, via a computer communication network at a predetermined period, the viewing history information including leaving operation information indicating that, after a product that is out of stock is viewed, the user left the electronic market;
out-of-stock view calculation code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to calculate a number of out-of-stock views of each product, based on the viewing history included in the acquired viewing history information;
leaving operation calculation code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to calculate a number of leaving operations for each product, based on the leaving operation information;
determination code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine whether or not to change a degree of replenishment that indicates a degree of priority with which a product is replenished;
replenishment change code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to change the degree of replenishment of each product, based on a determination result in the determination, by updating, in the at least one memory, a degree-of-replenishment field of inventory information stored as a data structure indexed by a product identifier, wherein the number of out-of-stock views represents a number of times that a product that is out of stock is viewed; and
level determination code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine whether or not the degree of replenishment is changed and to which level of a plurality of levels the degree of replenishment is changed, based on a degree-of-replenishment setting criterion that is set according to the number of out-of-stock views and the number of leaving operations, for each product.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one memory configured to store program code”, “at least one processor”, “a sales server device”, “a management device”, “an electronic market” and “a computer communication network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “at least one memory configured to store program code”, “at least one processor”, “sales server device”, “management device”, “electronic market” and “computer communication network” language, “acquire viewing history information indicating a viewing history by a user to a product sold in a store …, the viewing history information being received… at a predetermined period, the viewing history information including leaving operation information indicating that, after a product that is out of stock is viewed, the user left” and “change the degree of replenishment of each product, based on a determination result in the determination, by updating… a degree-of-replenishment field of inventory information stored as a data structure indexed by a product identifier, wherein the number of out-of-stock views represents a number of times that a product that is out of stock is viewed” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “calculate a number of leaving operations for each product, based on the leaving operation information; …determine whether or not to change a degree of replenishment that indicates a degree of priority with which a product is replenished; … change the degree of replenishment of each product, based on a determination result in the determination, by updating… a degree-of-replenishment field of inventory information stored as a data structure indexed by a product identifier, wherein the number of out-of-stock views represents a number of times that a product that is out of stock is viewed; and… determine whether or not the degree of replenishment is changed and to which level of a plurality of levels the degree of replenishment is changed, based on a degree-of-replenishment setting criterion that is set according to the number of out-of-stock views and the number of leaving operations, for each product” in the context of this claim encompass mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a few additional elements – “at least one memory configured to store program code”, “at least one processor”, “a sales server device”, “a management device”, “an electronic market”, “a computer communication network” and “artificial intelligence” (claim 11). The “at least one memory configured to store program code”, “at least one processor”, “sales server device”, “management device”, “electronic market”, “computer communication network” and “artificial intelligence” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the calculating, changing and determining steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the acquiring step). 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.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “at least one memory configured to store program code”, “at least one processor”, “a sales server device”, “a management device”, “an electronic market”, “a computer communication network” and “artificial intelligence” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “at least one memory configured to store program code”, “at least one processor”, “sales server device”, “management device”, “electronic market”, “computer communication network” and “artificial intelligence” are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights