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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the claims, when read in light of the specification and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
A. Means-Plus-Function Limitations (Claims 1, 8, 9, and 10)
Independent claims 1, 8, 9, and 10 recite the limitations: "inventory managing means";
"first type option presenting means"; and in claim 8, "second type option presenting means."
The use of the term "means" together with purely functional language creates a presumption that these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The claims themselves fail to recite sufficient structure for performing the recited functions.
Accordingly, these limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). If the corresponding structure, material, or acts disclosed in the specification are insufficiently linked to the claimed functions, or if no algorithm is disclosed for implementation by a processor or computer, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, 9, and 10 are indefinite because the corresponding structure for the recited means-plus-function limitations cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty.
See MPEP §§ 2181–2183 and Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
B. "Inventory Status Image"
Claims 1–10 recite that the first type option includes an "inventory status image representing the inventory status of the product group."
The term "inventory status image" lacks objective boundaries because the claims do not specify the characteristics that distinguish such an image from any other graphical representation.
For example, it is unclear whether the claimed image comprises:
a numerical count;
a color-coded indicator;
a graphical bar;
an icon;
an animation;
a percentage indicator; or
any other visual representation.
Because the claims fail to provide objective criteria by which one of ordinary skill in the art could determine whether a particular image constitutes the claimed "inventory status image," the scope of the claims is not reasonably certain.
Accordingly, the term renders claims 1–10 indefinite.
C. "First Type Option" and "Second Type Option"
Claims 1–10 repeatedly recite "first type option" and "second type option."
However, neither term is defined by any structural or functional characteristics sufficient to establish objective claim boundaries.
The claims do not specify whether an "option" constitutes: a graphical user interface button;
an icon; a menu item; a hyperlink; a thumbnail; a selectable object; a virtual product; or
another user interface construct.
Likewise, the phrase "associated with the product group" fails to define the nature of the association, including whether such association is logical, relational, database-based, visual, or otherwise.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty the scope of the claimed "first type option" and "second type option."
Claims 1–10 are therefore indefinite.
D. "Inventory Level"
Claim 2 recites: "an inventory level corresponding to the total number of stocks of all the products included in the product group."
The claim fails to define whether "inventory level" refers to: an exact numerical quantity; a percentage; a normalized value; a threshold category; a graphical state; or another metric.
Because multiple reasonable interpretations exist and no objective standard is provided, the metes and bounds of the claim are uncertain. Accordingly, claim 2 is indefinite.
E. "Every Predetermined Time or Every Time the User Performs an Operation"
Claim 4 recites: "acquires, every predetermined time or every time the user performs an operation..."
The claim fails to clarify whether acquisition occurs: periodically only; upon user interaction only; under either condition; under both conditions simultaneously; or according to selectable operating modes.
Because the relationship between these triggering conditions is ambiguous, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, claim 4 is indefinite.
F. "Remaining Amount of Second Type Options"
Claim 8 recites: "the inventory status image is an image representing the remaining amount of second type options corresponding to the total number of stocks of all the products included in the product group."
However, "second type options" are interface elements rather than products or inventory themselves.
It is unclear whether the claimed "remaining amount" refers to: remaining products; remaining selectable objects; remaining lottery tickets; remaining inventory units; remaining purchase opportunities; or another quantity.
The relationship between "remaining amount of second type options" and "total number of stocks" is therefore ambiguous. Accordingly, claim 8 is indefinite.
II. Objection Regarding Functional Claiming
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 10 recite functional language that describes the desired result to be achieved without reciting sufficient corresponding structure for performing the recited functions.
Specifically, the recited:
inventory managing means;
first type option presenting means; and
second type option presenting means
are claimed solely in terms of the results they achieve. Absent corresponding structure disclosed in the specification, including an algorithm where the corresponding structure is a programmed processor, the scope of these limitations cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and if adequate corresponding structure is not disclosed, the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
For the reasons set forth above:
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the recited means-plus-function limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) without reciting sufficient corresponding structure and, if unsupported by adequate disclosure in the specification, are indefinite.
Claims 1–10 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the terms "inventory status image," "first type option," "second type option," "associated with," "inventory level," and "remaining amount of second type options" fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Claim 4 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the phrase "every predetermined time or every time the user performs an operation" introduces ambiguity regarding the conditions under which the claimed acquisition operation is performed, thereby rendering the scope of the claim uncertain.
Accordingly, claims 1–10 fail to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, without reciting significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claims 1–8 are directed to a machine or process, claim 9 is directed to a computer program embodied as a statutory manufacture, and claim 10 is directed to a system. Accordingly, the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention and satisfy Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis.
Step 2A – Prong One
These Claims Recite a Judicial Exception
Independent claim 1 recites, in substance: managing inventory statuses of products in a product group; presenting a first type option associated with the product group; presenting an inventory status image representing inventory status; and enabling a user to select the presented option.
These limitations are directed to organizing and presenting commercial information regarding inventory and facilitating product selection by a customer.
The claimed activities constitute the abstract idea of: managing inventory; organizing product offerings; displaying inventory information; presenting selectable purchasing options; and facilitating customer purchasing decisions.
Such activities fall within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions, sales activities, inventory management, merchandising, and marketing.
Further, presenting an inventory status image merely displays information to a user and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. The claimed inventory management and option presentation could alternatively be performed mentally or manually by a store clerk who observes inventory, updates a display board, and informs customers which products remain available.
Accordingly, claims 1–10 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two
These Claims Do Not Integrate the Judicial Exception Into a Practical Application: The additional elements recited in the claims include: a product providing device; a user terminal; inventory managing means; option presenting means; communication between the product providing device and the terminal; inventory status images; and program or system implementations.
These elements merely implement the abstract inventory management concept using generic computer technology.
These claims do not recite: any improvement to computer functionality; any improvement to network communications; any improvement to graphical rendering technology; any specialized inventory hardware; any improvement to database technology; any new communication protocol; any improvement to image generation technology; or any technological solution to a technological problem.
Instead, the computer merely performs its ordinary functions of:
storing inventory information;
communicating with user terminals;
displaying graphical images;
receiving user selections; and
transmitting notifications.
The claimed inventory status image merely conveys information to a user without improving the functioning of the computer or the display device itself. Likewise, disabling selection when inventory reaches zero and notifying users of sales completion merely implement conventional business rules governing product availability.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
These Claims Do Not Recite Significantly More
The additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, amount only to generic computer implementation of the abstract idea. The claimed product providing device merely performs conventional computing functions including: maintaining inventory data;
communicating with terminals; displaying options; and processing user selections.
No specialized architecture or unconventional hardware is recited.
The terminal merely displays selectable information and receives user input, which constitutes routine computer functionality.
Inventory Status Images: Displaying inventory graphically merely presents information.
Information presentation alone does not provide an inventive concept and does not improve computer technology.
Lottery Box and Lottery Ticket Images of claim 5: Representing options as lottery boxes or lottery tickets merely changes the aesthetic appearance of the interface. Such graphical metaphors constitute insignificant presentation of information and do not improve computer functionality or solve a technological problem.
With respect to claims 6-7, Disabling Selection and Sending Notifications, Preventing selection of unavailable products and sending end-of-sale notifications merely implement ordinary inventory management policies and business rules.
These are conventional commercial practices routinely implemented on generic computing devices.
Claims 9 and 10 merely recite the same abstract idea implemented as software or as a generic computer system.
Reciting the abstract idea in different statutory forms does not confer eligibility.
Independent claim 1 is representative.
Dependent claims 2–8 merely further limit the abstract idea by specifying: particular inventory representations; dynamic image updates; periodic inventory refreshes; lottery-themed user interface elements; disabling unavailable selections; notifications; and second-level option presentation.
These additional limitations merely refine the manner in which inventory information is displayed or business rules are enforced and therefore remain directed to the same abstract idea. Independent claims 9 and 10 merely recite corresponding program and system implementations of claim 1 and likewise fail to recite significantly more.
Claims 1–10 are directed to the abstract idea of managing inventory information and presenting selectable purchasing options based on inventory status, which constitutes certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The additional elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computing devices, conventional communication interfaces, and ordinary graphical presentation techniques without improving computer technology or integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
Furthermore, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they merely automate conventional inventory management and product presentation practices using generic computer components.
Accordingly, claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malecha et al. (US 2019/0347606 A1, hereinafter Malecha) in view of High et al. (US 2020/0302329 A1, hereinafter High).
With respect to claim 1, Malecha disclose a product providing device configured to communicate with a terminal of a user (Abstract; ¶¶ [0040]-[0048]; Figs. 2–4 discloses a supply chain management system including computing devices and user interfaces that communicate with user terminals over a network to provide inventory information and product selections);
inventory managing means for managing inventory statuses of products included in a product group including a plurality of types of products (Abstract; ¶¶ [0050]-[0065]; Figs. 2, 3, 5-10 teaches an Inventory Management System that maintains inventory information for multiple products, monitors inventory levels, determines optimal inventory balances, tracks inventory movement, and manages inventory status across numerous product types and locations);
first type option presenting means for presenting to the terminal a first type option associated with the product group and including an inventory status image representing the inventory status of the product group in such a manner that the user is able to select the first type option (¶¶ [0034]-[0038], [0058]-[0066]; Figs. 2-4, 7-10 teaches presenting inventory information through user interfaces connected to inventory management systems, wherein inventory levels and product availability are displayed to users for interaction and product selection through graphical interfaces).
Malecha does not expressly teach that the first type option includes an image, nor does Malecha expressly disclose dynamically presenting themed selectable options that visually correspond to changing inventory status in the particular manner claimed.
However, High et al. disclose dynamic graphical interfaces presented on handheld electronic devices in which available products, unavailable products, substitute products, and selectable graphical objects are generated and modified based upon real-time inventory conditions and availability determinations (Abstract; ¶¶ [0011]-[0012], [0030]-[0032]; Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 6).
High further teaches presenting dynamically updated selectable interface elements representing available objects, removing unavailable objects, replacing unavailable objects with substitute graphical selections, and modifying the presented interface according to inventory conditions (¶¶ [0040]-[0041] and [0059] -[0060]; Figs. 3-6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Malecha's inventory management interface using the dynamic inventory-dependent graphical presentation techniques of High so that selectable graphical options visually represent changing inventory status and are updated according to product availability.
It would have been obvious to combine Malecha with High because both references address computerized presentation of inventory availability to users over networked systems. High provides improved user interface mechanisms that dynamically alter selectable graphical objects according to inventory availability, while Malecha provides sophisticated inventory management and monitoring functionality. Combining the references would merely substitute one known graphical presentation technique for another predictable user interface implementation to improve user understanding of inventory conditions, reduce unavailable selections, and enhance purchasing efficiency, yielding predictable results consistent with KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
With respect to claim 2, Malecha discloses the inventory status image represents an inventory level corresponding to the total number of stocks of all products included in the product group (Abstract; ¶¶ [0030]-[0034], [0063]-[0068]; Figs. 5-10).
To the extent Malecha does not expressly disclose aggregating total remaining stock into a single graphical inventory image associated with a selectable option, High teaches querying centralized databases to retrieve product availability information and presenting interface elements based upon aggregated availability information for multiple products (¶¶ [0011]-[0012], [0045]-[0062]; Figs. 3-6). Therefore claim 2 would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 3, Malecha discloses: changing the inventory status image according to changes in inventory (¶¶ [0038]-[0095]; Figs. 5-10).
Malecha does not explicitly teach modifying the displayed graphical representation itself in direct correspondence with inventory depletion.
High expressly teaches dynamically updating presented graphical selections by removing unavailable objects, replacing unavailable objects, and altering displayed interface elements according to changing inventory conditions (¶¶ [0048]-[0068]; Figs. 3 and 5).
Therefore claim 3 would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 4, Malecha discloses: acquiring inventory information and updating inventory displays based upon changing inventory conditions (¶¶ [0040]-[0092]; Figs. 5-10).
High further teaches repeatedly querying databases to obtain current product availability before generating updated graphical interfaces for users (¶¶ [0042]-[0068]; Figs. 3 and 5).
Accordingly, periodically updating inventory images based upon acquired inventory information would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 5, Malecha teaches graphical product presentation interfaces and selectable product group representations.
However, Malecha does not expressly disclose the first type option imitates a lottery box and the second type option imitates a lottery ticket.
High teaches configurable graphical interface objects and dynamically generated selectable visual elements representing products presented to users. Representing selectable product groups using lottery-box imagery and subordinate lottery-ticket imagery merely constitutes a non-functional ornamental variation of known graphical user interface objects that would have been an obvious design choice for increasing user engagement without changing system operation. Therefore claim 5 would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 6, Malecha teaches determining inventory depletion and unavailable inventory conditions. Malecha does not expressly disclose disabling user selection after depletion.
High expressly teaches determining unavailable products, removing unavailable objects, and preventing unavailable product selection through dynamic interface modification (¶¶ [0048]-[0068]; Figs. 3, 5, and 6). Accordingly, rendering depleted options unselectable would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 7, Malecha teaches monitoring inventory status and inventory exhaustion. High teaches notifying users through dynamically modified interfaces when requested products become unavailable and presenting replacement or removal interfaces accordingly (¶¶ [0050]-[0068]; Figs. 5 and 6). Thus displaying an indication that sales have ended due to depleted inventory would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 8, Malecha teaches presenting selectable product group interfaces associated with inventory information. High teaches presenting substitute selectable objects corresponding to unavailable products while updating interface representations based upon remaining inventory (¶¶ [0048]-[0055]; Figs. 3-6). Accordingly, presenting second type options corresponding one-to-one with products while displaying remaining inventory status would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 9, Malecha discloses: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute inventory management and product presentation functions (¶¶ [0029]-[0038], [0060]-[0064]; Figs. 2-4 teaches software applications executed by processors for inventory management, inventory tracking, replenishment management, user interface generation, and inventory presentation).
Malecha does not explicitly disclose dynamic graphical modification of selectable interface objects based upon changing inventory, High teaches software that dynamically updates graphical selections, removes unavailable objects, generates substitute interfaces, and modifies displayed options according to inventory availability (¶¶ [0048]-[0057]; Figs. 3-6).
A skilled artisan would have incorporated High's dynamic interface generation algorithms into Malecha's inventory management software to improve user interaction, reduce unavailable selections, and provide more informative graphical inventory representations, yielding predictable improvements using known techniques.
With respect to claim 10, Malecha discloses a product providing system including a terminal and a product providing device configured to communicate with the terminal, inventory management means, and first type option presenting means (Abstract; ¶¶ [0021]-[0048]; Figs. 2-4).
Malecha does not expressly disclose dynamically modifying themed graphical selectable options according to changing inventory conditions or removing unavailable graphical options.
High teaches dynamically updating graphical user interfaces, replacing unavailable selectable objects, removing unavailable products, and generating substitute selectable graphical representations according to current inventory availability (¶¶ [0048]-[0068]; Figs. 3-6).
Accordingly, combining High with Malecha renders the claimed product providing system obvious.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate High's dynamic graphical presentation mechanisms into Malecha's inventory management architecture because both systems seek to improve electronic product selection using current inventory information. The combination merely applies known interface updating techniques to known inventory management systems to obtain the predictable result of presenting users with accurate, dynamically updated selectable product options while preventing selection of unavailable inventory, thereby improving overall system usability and efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights