DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant claims continuation to application 17/283,802 (now abandoned) filed April 8, 2021 which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Patent Application No. PCT/JP2019/050125 filed on December 20, 2019 and claims the benefit of priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2018-248382 filed on December 28, 2018. The International Application was published in Japanese on July 2, 2020 as International Publication No. WO/2020/137896 under PCT Article 21(2).
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 2/24/2025 has been considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s claims, filed 2/24/2025, have been entered. Claims 1-12 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the rule date” in line 4 and should recite “the rule data”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the apparatus, as claimed in claims 1-10, are directed to a machine, the method, as claimed in claim 11, is directed to a process, and the non-transitory storage medium, as claimed in claim 12, is directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
causing information of each of a plurality of components which constitutes a product to be displayed in response to an access, wherein the product is identified by product identification information which includes a product model and a product variable, and each component is identified by component identification information which includes a common code and a component variable:
storing constituent component data in which the product model and the common code associated with each other are described, and storing rule data in which a rule for converting the product variable into the component variable is described; and
acquire the product model of the product into which the user input the product model;
acquire the product variable of the product into which the user input the product variable;
define the product identification information of the product using the product model and the product variable acquired;
specify the common code which is associated with the product model in the defined product identification information by referring the constituent component data;
convert the acquired product variable into the component variable according to the rule data;
define the component identification information using the specified common code and the component variable which is obtained by the converting; and
cause the information of each of the plurality of components, which information is specified based on the defined component identification information, to be displayed.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because displaying product information based on user input is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 11 and 12 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 11 and 12 as described above for independent claim 1.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A server apparatus for causing information of each of a plurality of components which constitutes a product to be displayed on a terminal apparatus of a user in response to an access from the terminal apparatus, wherein the product is identified by product identification information which includes a product model and a product variable, and each component is identified by component identification information which includes a common code and a component variable, the server apparatus comprising:
a storage device storing constituent component data in which the product model and the common code associated with each other are described, and storing rule data in which a rule for converting the product variable into the component variable is described; and
a computer which is configured to:
acquire the product model of the product from the terminal apparatus into which the user input the product model;
acquire the product variable of the product from the terminal apparatus into which the user input the product variable;
define the product identification information of the product using the product model and the product variable acquired from the terminal apparatus;
specify the common code which is associated with the product model in the defined product identification information by referring the constituent component data;
convert the acquired product variable into the component variable according to the rule data;
define the component identification information using the specified common code and the component variable which is obtained by the converting; and
cause the information of each of the plurality of components, which information is specified based on the defined component identification information, to be displayed on the terminal apparatus.
In this case, claim 11 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
An information provision method performed by a computer of a server apparatus for causing information of each of a plurality of components which constitutes a product to be displayed on a terminal apparatus of a user in response to an access from the terminal apparatus, wherein the product is identified by product identification information which includes a product model and a product variable, and each component is identified by component identification information which includes a common code and a component variable,
the server apparatus including a storage device storing constituent component data in which the product model and the common code associated with each other are described, and storing rule data in which a rule for converting the product variable into the component variable is described,
the information provision method comprising the steps of:
acquiring the product model of the product from the terminal apparatus into which the user input the product model;
acquiring the product variable of the product from the terminal apparatus into which the user input the product variable;
defining the product identification information of the product using the product model and the product variable acquired from the terminal apparatus;
specifying the common code which is associated with the product model in the defined product identification information by referring the constituent component data;
converting the acquired product variable into the component variable according to the rule data;
defining the component identification information using the specified common code and the component variable which is obtained by the converting; and
causing the information of each of the plurality of components, which information is specified based on the defined component identification information, to be displayed on the terminal apparatus.
In this case, claim 12 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A non-transitory storage medium storing a computer program of a computer of a server apparatus for causing information of each of a plurality of components which constitutes a product to be displayed on a terminal apparatus of a user in response to an access from the terminal apparatus, wherein the product is identified by product identification information which includes a product model and a product variable, and each component is identified by component identification information which includes a common code and a component variable,
the server apparatus including a storage device storing constituent component data in which the product model and the common code associated with each other are described, and storing rule data in which a rule for converting the product variable into the component variable is described,
the computer program causing the computer to execute the processes of:
acquiring the product model of the product from the terminal apparatus into which the user input the product model;
acquiring the product variable of the product from the terminal apparatus into which the user input the product variable;
defining the product identification information of the product using the product model and the product variable acquired from the terminal apparatus;
specifying the common code which is associated with the product model in the defined product identification information by referring the constituent component data;
converting the acquired product variable into the component variable according to the rule data;
defining the component identification information using the specified common code and the component variable which is obtained by the converting; and
causing the information of each of the plurality of components, which information is specified based on the defined component identification information, to be displayed on the terminal apparatus.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“by a computer of a server apparatus”, “a terminal apparatus of a user”, “the server apparatus comprising: a storage device and a computer”, displaying information “on the terminal apparatus”, “a computer of a server apparatus”, “a non-transitory storage medium storing a computer program of a computer of a server apparatus”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receive/acquire information, display information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 11, and 12 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Fig. 1; paragraphs [0010]-[0012]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving/acquiring and displaying steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 11, and 12 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 11, and 12, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 11, and 12 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 11, and 12 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 11, and 12 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1, 11, and 12 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 4-10
Dependent claim(s) 4, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 4-10 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1.
Claims 4-10 set forth:
cause, as the information of each of the plurality of components, a component number, a component name, a component model number, a unit price, and a quantity used in the product to be displayed on the terminal apparatus.
cause, in a case where the product variable is undefined, a part of the component identification information to be displayed on the terminal apparatus, and the unit price to be not displayed on the terminal apparatus.
wherein the product identification information is a product model number set uniquely to the product, and the component identification information is a component model number set uniquely to the component.
wherein the product variable designates numerical values which differ from each other depending upon size of a portion of the product, and the rule is described in the rule data so that the component variable is defined as a numerical value depending upon size of the portion of the product.
wherein the component variable is obtained from among a plurality of product variables according to a preset rule.
wherein the computer is configured to update the product variable and the component variable when specification of the product is changed, and to cause the updated product variable and the updated component variable to be displayed on the terminal apparatus.
wherein the computer is configured to cause a component list of the plurality of components which constitutes the product to be displayed on the terminal apparatus.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of displaying product information based on user input. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1.
Thus, dependent claims 4-10 are ineligible.
Regarding claim 2 and 3
Dependent claim(s) 2 and 3 sets forth:
acquire the product identification information, which is input into a search box on a web page by the user, from the terminal apparatus; and cause an image and a name of the product corresponding to the product identification information to be displayed on the terminal apparatus.
cause choices for the product variable to be displayed on the terminal apparatus, in a case where the user input a part of the product identification information into the search box
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of displaying product information based on user input. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “a web page”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment and indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Further, the “web page” is recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 2 and 3 are also ineligible.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neal et al. (US 2003/0149706 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Neal et al., hereinafter Neal, discloses a server apparatus for causing information of each of a plurality of components which constitutes a product to be displayed on a terminal apparatus of a user in response to an access from the terminal apparatus (Figs. 1-7; ¶0018, ¶0071; Examiner notes “pen” is comparable to product, item attributes (see Table 4 describing color section part number and point section part number) are comparable to a plurality of components), wherein the product is identified by product identification information which includes a product model and a product variable (Figs. 3-7; ¶¶0036-0042, ¶0071), and each component is identified by component identification information which includes a common code and a component variable (Figs. 3-7; ¶¶0036-0042, ¶0071, Table 4; “ink color” and “point” are examples of common codes of two components and “BLK”, “BLU”, “GRN”, “RED” and “FINE”, “MEDM”, “BOLD” are examples of component variables of the two components), the server apparatus comprising:
a storage device (Figs. 1-2; Tables 1-4, ¶0019 [database]) storing constituent component data in which the product model and the common code associated with each other are described (¶0019 [an electronic catalog of items, such as products or services… constructed using a uniform catalog schema so that each product has a single database record that includes all of its different suppliers], ¶¶0042-0043), and storing rule data in which a rule for converting the product variable into the component variable is described (Figs. 1-6; ¶¶0019-0022 [the rules can be incorporated into the catalog. In one embodiment, the catalog is maintained and loaded in the form of XML (Extensible Markup Language) statements and these statements can include values for attributes of catalog items or rules about how to determine values of catalog items]) in which a rule for converting the product variable into the component variable is described); and
a computer (Figs. 1-2; ¶0018) which is configured to:
acquire the product model of the product from the terminal apparatus into which the user input the product model (Figs. 4-8; Tables 1-4, ¶¶0030-0031, ¶¶0054-0057);
acquire the product variable of the product from the terminal apparatus into which the user input the product variable (Figs. 4-8; Tables 1-4, ¶¶0030-0031, ¶¶0056, ¶¶0058-0064);
define the product identification information of the product using the product model and the product variable acquired from the terminal apparatus (Figs. 4-8; Tables 1-4, ¶¶0056, ¶¶0058-0064);
specify the common code which is associated with the product model in the defined product identification information by referring the constituent component data (Figs. 4-8; Tables 1-4, ¶¶0056, ¶¶0058-0064);
convert the acquired product variable into the component variable according to the rule data (Figs. 4-8; Tables 1-4, ¶¶0056, ¶¶0058-0064 in view of ¶¶0019-0022);
define the component identification information using the specified common code and the component variable which is obtained by the converting (Figs. 4-8; Tables 1-4, ¶¶0056, ¶¶0058-0064); and
cause the information of each of the plurality of components, which information is specified based on the defined component identification information, to be displayed on the terminal apparatus (Figs. 4-6, element 408 and “Description”; Tables 1-4, ¶¶0056-0064, ¶0076).
Regarding claim 2, Neal discloses the server apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the computer is configured to:
acquire the product identification information, which is input into a search box on a web page by the user, from the terminal apparatus (Figs. 4-8; ¶¶0030-0031, ¶¶0054-0057); and
cause an image and a name of the product corresponding to the product identification information to be displayed on the terminal apparatus (Figs. 4-6; ¶¶0056-0064).
Regarding claim 3, Neal discloses the server apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the computer is configured to cause choices for the product variable to be displayed on the terminal apparatus, in a case where the user input a part of the product identification information into the search box (Figs. 4-6; Tables 1-4, ¶¶0054-0064).
Regarding claim 4, Neal discloses the server apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the computer is configured to cause, as the information of each of the plurality of components, a component number, a component name, a component model number, a unit price, and a quantity used in the product to be displayed on the terminal apparatus (Figs. 4-6; Tables 1-5; ¶0046, ¶¶0054-0064, and ¶¶0076-0078; Examiner notes the quantity used in the product is only the one option displayed).
Regarding claim 5, Neal discloses the server apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the computer is configured to cause, in a case where the product variable is undefined, a part of the component identification information to be displayed on the terminal apparatus, and the unit price to be not displayed on the terminal apparatus (Figs. 4-6; Tables 1-4; ¶0046, ¶¶0054-0064, and ¶¶0076-0078).
Regarding claim 6, Neal discloses the server apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the product identification information is a product model number set uniquely to the product (Figs. 4-6; Tables 1-4; ¶¶0052-0064 [the part number formula can be structured to configure a unique product identifier that is understandable to the supplier. The part number formula can also render an expression such as Box SGSF-RED BOLD. Alternatively, the part number may be SGSF-MEDM. The ink color, which must also be specified can be treated in the same way as a part number section but not added to the part number. The green, medium point pen can be ordered using the part number and color as SGSF-MEDM, green, case. In this case, the ink color codes and ink color descriptive information can be the same]), and
the component identification information is a component model number set uniquely to the component (Tables 1-4; ¶0046 [The global attributes can typically be associated with the base section of the part number. The pen will also have attributes that are unique to pens or unique to pens and a few other types of items that are like pens, such as ink color and fineness. The local attributes will often depend, in part, upon the other sections of the part number, the sections corresponding to the configurable aspects of the item. These descriptive terms can be rendered in an options matrix as shown in Table 4. Table 4 provides the codes for each part number section with the corresponding description and price adjustment for each option.]).
Regarding claim 7, Neal discloses the server apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the product variable designates numerical values which differ from each other depending upon size of a portion of the product (Tables 4-5; ¶0046, ¶¶0049-0055), and
the rule is described in the rule data so that the component variable is defined as a numerical value depending upon size of the portion of the product (Figs. 1-6; ¶¶0019-0022 [the rules can be incorporated into the catalog. In one embodiment, the catalog is maintained and loaded in the form of XML (Extensible Markup Language) statements and these statements can include values for attributes of catalog items or rules about how to determine values of catalog items]) in which a rule for converting the product variable into the component variable is described in view of Tables 4-5; ¶0046, ¶¶0049-0055).
Regarding claim 8, Neal discloses the server apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the component variable is obtained from among a plurality of product variables according to a preset rule (¶¶0043-0055).
Regarding claim 9, Neal discloses the server apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the computer is configured to update the product variable and the component variable when specification of the product is changed (¶0043, ¶0080, ¶0083), and to cause the updated product variable and the updated component variable to be displayed on the terminal apparatus (Figs. 4-6; Tables 1-4; ¶0046, ¶¶0054-0064, and ¶¶0076-0078).
Regarding claim 10, Neal discloses the server apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the computer is configured to cause a component list of the plurality of components which constitutes the product to be displayed on the terminal apparatus (Figs. 4-6; Tables 1-4; ¶0046, ¶¶0054-0064, and ¶¶0076-0078).
Regarding claim 11 (process) and claim 12 (article of manufacture), these claims recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recite din claims 1-10 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 11 and 12 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference U of the Notice of References Cited “classicmustang.com” discloses product and part numbers that comprise a code wherein the code can be decoded to describe attributes such as decade, year, product line, and source of part.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
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 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights