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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 03/22/2025.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(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.
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.
The term “means” is expressly recited in each of the listed below:
Claim 1: recites “inventory managing means” for the following function of “managing inventory statuses of products in a product group including a plurality of types of products”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the processor 10 comprehensively controls operation of the product providing device 1 on the basis of a program and data stored in the storage unit 12, that includes a product inventory managing unit 116, the disclose further lottery box database D1 that maintain inventory information for products. The specification explains that inventory status includes: current number of products in stocks, total inventory, inventory for each prize/product type, sold-out status, see paragraphs [0050], [0053-0055], [0073], [0095-0096] describe management and updating of inventory statues. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 1: recites “option presenting means” for the following function of “presenting to the terminal a plurality of options associated with the product group in such a manner that the user is able to select an option”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the terminal 2 includes a display 21 and a first type option presenting unit 112 . The first type options are disclosed as lottery boxes. The first type option presenting unit: references lottery box database D1, presents lottery box images, presents inventory levels, presents remaining inventory and waiting-user information. See paragraphs [0050],[0052-0058] and [0094-0095]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 1: recites “product providing means” for the following function of “providing, by a lottery, a product from the product group associated with the option”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the processor 10 comprehensively controls operation of the product providing device 1 on the basis of a program and data stored in the storage unit 12, including a product providing unit 117, the specification discloses lottery tickets are associated one-to-one with products further teaches that after the ticket selection and payment: the associated product is identified, the product information is presented and shipment is initiated. See paragraphs [0050], [0039, 0067-0075] and [0106-0109]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 1: recites “option presenting means” for the following function of “searches for, based on the inventory statuses of the products, an option that satisfies a search condition, and presents the option that satisfies the search condition”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the terminal 2 includes a display 21 and a first type option presenting unit 112 . The first type options are disclosed as lottery boxes. The first type option presenting unit: references lottery box database D1, presents lottery box images, presents inventory levels, presents remaining inventory and waiting-user information. See paragraphs [0050],[0052-0058] and [0094-0095]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 2: recites “option presenting means” for the following function of “sorts and presents the options in an order in which the search condition is satisfied”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the terminal 2 includes a display 21 and a first type option presenting unit 112 . The first type options are disclosed as lottery boxes. The first type option presenting unit: references lottery box database D1, presents lottery box images, presents inventory levels, presents remaining inventory and waiting-user information. See paragraphs [0050],[0052-0058] and [0094-0095]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 5: recites “option presenting means” for the following function of “causes the option to be monopolized by one user during a period of time from execution of a lottery of a product in the product group associated with the option to confirmation of the product and causes other users to have to wait to select the monopolized option during the period of time in which the option is monopolized”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the terminal 2 includes a display 21 and a first type option presenting unit 112 . The first type options are disclosed as lottery boxes. The first type option presenting unit: references lottery box database D1, presents lottery box images, presents inventory levels, presents remaining inventory and waiting-user information. See paragraphs [0050],[0052-0058] and [0094-0095]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 7: recites “option presenting means” for the following function of “presents predetermined search conditions in a selectable manner”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the terminal 2 includes a display 21 and a first type option presenting unit 112 . The first type options are disclosed as lottery boxes. The first type option presenting unit: references lottery box database D1, presents lottery box images, presents inventory levels, presents remaining inventory and waiting-user information. See paragraphs [0050],[0052-0058] and [0094-0095]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 8: recites “option presenting means” for the following function of “presents only the option that satisfies the search condition”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the terminal 2 includes a display 21 and a first type option presenting unit 112 . The first type options are disclosed as lottery boxes. The first type option presenting unit: references lottery box database D1, presents lottery box images, presents inventory levels, presents remaining inventory and waiting-user information. See paragraphs [0050],[0052-0058] and [0094-0095]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 9: recites “option presenting means” for the following function of “presents an option including an inventory status image of an inventory level representing the total number of stocks in the product group associated with the option”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the terminal 2 includes a display 21 and a first type option presenting unit 112 . The first type options are disclosed as lottery boxes. The first type option presenting unit: references lottery box database D1, presents lottery box images, presents inventory levels, presents remaining inventory and waiting-user information. See paragraphs [0050],[0052-0058] and [0094-0095]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 11: recites “inventory managing means” for the following function of “managing inventory statuses of products in a product group including a plurality of types of products”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the processor 10 comprehensively controls operation of the product providing device 1 on the basis of a program and data stored in the storage unit 12, that includes a product inventory managing unit 116, the disclose further lottery box database D1 that maintain inventory information for products. The specification explains that inventory status includes: current number of products in stocks, total inventory, inventory for each prize/product type, sold-out status, see paragraphs [0050], [0053-0055], [0073], [0095-0096] describe management and updating of inventory statues. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 11: recites “option presenting means” for the following function of “presenting to a terminal a plurality of options associated with the product group in such a manner that a user is able to select an option”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the terminal 2 includes a display 21 and a first type option presenting unit 112 . The first type options are disclosed as lottery boxes. The first type option presenting unit: references lottery box database D1, presents lottery box images, presents inventory levels, presents remaining inventory and waiting-user information. See paragraphs [0050],[0052-0058] and [0094-0095]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 11: recites “product providing means” for the following function of “providing, by a lottery, a product from the product group associated with the option”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the processor 10 comprehensively controls operation of the product providing device 1 on the basis of a program and data stored in the storage unit 12, including a product providing unit 117, the specification discloses lottery tickets are associated one-to-one with products further teaches that after the ticket selection and payment: the associated product is identified, the product information is presented and shipment is initiated. See paragraphs [0050], [0039, 0067-0075] and [0106-0109]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 11: recites “option presenting means” for the following function of “searches for, based on the inventory statuses of the products, an option that satisfies a search condition, and presents the option that satisfies the search condition”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the terminal 2 includes a display 21 and a first type option presenting unit 112 . The first type options are disclosed as lottery boxes. The first type option presenting unit: references lottery box database D1, presents lottery box images, presents inventory levels, presents remaining inventory and waiting-user information. See paragraphs [0050],[0052-0058] and [0094-0095]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 12: recites “inventory managing means” for the following function of “managing inventory statuses of products in a product group including a plurality of types of products”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the processor 10 comprehensively controls operation of the product providing device 1 on the basis of a program and data stored in the storage unit 12, that includes a product inventory managing unit 116, the disclose further lottery box database D1 that maintain inventory information for products. The specification explains that inventory status includes: current number of products in stocks, total inventory, inventory for each prize/product type, sold-out status, see paragraphs [0050], [0053-0055], [0073], [0095-0096] describe management and updating of inventory statues. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 12: recites “option presenting means” for the following function of “presenting to the terminal a plurality of options associated with the product group in such a manner that the user is able to select an option”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the terminal 2 includes a display 21 and a first type option presenting unit 112 . The first type options are disclosed as lottery boxes. The first type option presenting unit: references lottery box database D1, presents lottery box images, presents inventory levels, presents remaining inventory and waiting-user information. See paragraphs [0050],[0052-0058] and [0094-0095]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 12: recites “product providing means” for the following function of “providing, by a lottery, a product from the product group associated with the option”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the processor 10 comprehensively controls operation of the product providing device 1 on the basis of a program and data stored in the storage unit 12, including a product providing unit 117, the specification discloses lottery tickets are associated one-to-one with products further teaches that after the ticket selection and payment: the associated product is identified, the product information is presented and shipment is initiated. See paragraphs [0050], [0039, 0067-0075] and [0106-0109]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 12: recites “option presenting means” for the following function of “searches for, based on the inventory statuses of the products, an option that satisfies a search condition, and presents the option that satisfies the search condition”. Further, the recited means is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, where the structure carries out the claimed function mentioned above. Accordingly, the invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The specification discloses the terminal 2 includes a display 21 and a first type option presenting unit 112 . The first type options are disclosed as lottery boxes. The first type option presenting unit: references lottery box database D1, presents lottery box images, presents inventory levels, presents remaining inventory and waiting-user information. See paragraphs [0050],[0052-0058] and [0094-0095]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 recite a device, which is directed to a machine.
Claim 12 recites a system, which is directed to a machine.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 recites “a program for causing a computer to function as …” as drafted, the claim is directed to a computer program per se.
Computer programs per se are software code and instructions stripped of any physical structural constraints. The claimed subject matter software per se or bare computer programs as falling within any of the four enumerated statutory categories. Because the claimed language encompassed a purely intangible product, it fails the categorical requirement of the USC 101.
In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, a claim drawn to such a computer readable media that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" in the claim to recite a “a non-transitory computer readable media storing a program for causing a computer to function as …”, see Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multicellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
For prosecution purposes, the examiner will consider claim set 11 to recite “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and continue examining claim set 11 under 35 USC § 101.
For examination purposes the examiner will consider 11 recite a manufacture (i.e., non-transitory computer readable media).
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1, 11 and 12 recite the abstract idea of monitoring stock for each product in a multi-product group and uses that inventory information to decide which user-selectable options should be presented. See [0030-0033].
1) These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims reciting managing inventory statuses of products in a product group; presenting options associated with the product group to a user; searching for an option based on inventory statuses and a search condition; determining whether an option satisfies the search condition; presenting the option satisfying the search condition; and providing a product by lottery associated with the selected option. These limitations recite commercial interactions involving inventory management, product allocation, and lottery-based distribution of products to users. Managing inventories, identifying available products, selecting qualifying product groups, and allocating products through a lottery are activities that fall within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity because they involve managing commercial relationships and distributing goods among participants.
2) These claims recite a mental process. The claims recite a mental process of data collection-analysis-display, for example, searching inventory statuses, evaluating whether an option satisfies a search condition, identifying qualifying options, and selecting an option based upon inventory information are observations, evaluations, judgments, and selections that can be performed in the human mind or with pern and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350.
The exceptions arise from organizing human activity and mental-process style data handling/presentation.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: product providing device, terminal, inventory managing means, option presenting means, product providing means,
Claim 11: program for causing a computer to function, terminal, inventory managing means, option presenting means, product providing means,
Claim 12: product providing system including a terminal of a user and a product providing device, inventory managing means, option presenting means, product providing means,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 1, 11 and 12 are directed to abstract idea as the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. The additional limitations merely provide a generic technological environment in which the abstract idea are performed. The claims do not recite any improvement to computer functionality, network technology, inventory-management technology, or lottery- processing technology, nor do the claims recite a particular machine integral to the claims or transformation of an article to a different state or thing.
Instead, the product providing device and terminal are used merely as tools to collect inventory information, evaluate search conditions, identify qualifying options, present information to users, and distribute products according to lottery results. Thus, the claims merely uses computers as a tool to implement the recited abstract ideas and do not impose any meaningful limit on those abstract ideas. When considered individually and as ordered combination, the additional elements amount to no more than applying the judicial exceptions using generic computer technology and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea themselves. The additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 1, 11 and 12 do not include “significantly more” than the judicial exceptions.
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-10 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 11 and 12 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-10 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 11 and 12 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 9: product providing device, option presenting means,
Claims 3, 4, 6, 10: product providing device,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-12, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US20030216969A1, hereinafter “Bauer”) in view of Yuichi Murakami of Japanese publication number JP6770144B1, hereinafter “Murakami”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11-12. Bauer discloses a product providing device capable of communicating with a terminal of a user, the product providing device comprising: (Bauer, [0029]; “environment 110-1 to 110-N”)
inventory managing means (Bauer, [0029]; “Intelligent Inventory Management System (IIMS) 105”) for managing inventory statuses of products in a product group including a plurality of types of products (Bauer, [0036]; “Database 215 may be one or more storage device systems that store information used by IIMS 105 to perform the intelligent inventory management features … for each Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) (i.e., information associated with an item reflecting at least a certain type of product (e.g., item type”); (Bauer, [0210]; “FIG. 5 shows an exemplary inventory analysis process that may be performed consistent with certain aspects related to the present invention. Initially, environment 110-1 may perform processes that determine the inventory of items in inventory 170 (Step 510) … Once environment 110-1 collects the inventory information (e.g., the number of items of each type included in inventory 170), it may be stored in database 215 for subsequent access”, see [0051-0054] and [0029]; “)
option presenting means (Bauer, [0035]; “IIMS 105 may include a CPU 201, memory 202, display 204 … Display 204 may be any type of device that presents information to a user, such as a computer screen in a workstation, laptop, dumb terminal, kiosk, etc.”) for presenting to the terminal a plurality of options associated with the product group in such a manner that the user is able to select an option; and (Bauer, [0141]; “operate a peripheral device 255 to display item information from RFID tags 280 included in item inventory 170 and/or provide inventory information to a user”, also see [0151-0180] and Fig. 4)
wherein the option presenting means searches for, based on the inventory statuses of the products, an option that satisfies a search condition, (Bauer, [0191-0192]; “The user may generate a query using various fields defined by user interface 210. Table V shows a list of exemplary search fields a user may use to filter a search … SKU Number … category ... The Item Detail page (not shown) may perform a process that allows a user to view information associated with an item”) and presents the option that satisfies the search condition. (Bauer, [0191]; “Stock level control page 414 allows the user to access various inventory level information by directing the user, for example, to View Live Inventory page 416”, [0207]; “interface 210 may include one or more pages that allow the user to set, view and/or modify various characteristics associated with individual items or item types, such as price, size characteristics, defect status, etc.”)
Bauer substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Bauer fails to explicitly disclose the “product providing means for providing, by a lottery, a product from the product group associated with the option”. However, Murakami teaches
product providing means for providing, by a lottery, a product (Murakami, [0002]; game media such as characters and items used in a game to a player”) from the product group associated with the option, (Murakami, [0015-0016]; “a lottery unit that determines a game medium to be provided to a player by lottery from a plurality of game media, and a specific game medium selected by the player from among a plurality of game media to be drawn … a lottery step in which a game medium to be provided to a player is determined by lottery from a plurality of game media, and a specific game medium selected by the player from among a plurality of game media to be drawn”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bauer to include product providing means for providing, by a lottery, a product from the product group associated with the option, as taught by Murakami, where this would be performed in order to provide a smart, cost-effective way to deliver requested product to a user. See Murakami [0005].
Regarding claim 2. The combination of Bauer in view of Murakami disclose the product providing device according to Claim 1, wherein the option presenting means sorts and presents the options in an order in which the search condition is satisfied. (Bauer, [0191-0192]; “Stock level control page 414 allows the user to access various inventory level information by directing the user, for example, to View Live Inventory page 416 … Table V shows a list of exemplary search fields a user may use to filter a search … TABLE V Search Fields … Other arbitrarily assigned or calculated priority codes”)
Regarding claim 3. The combination of Bauer in view of Murakami disclose the product providing device according to Claim 1, wherein the search condition is at least one of the total number of stocks in the product group associated with the option (Bauer, [2010]; “collects the inventory information (e.g., the number of items of each type included in inventory 170), it may be stored in database 215 for subsequent access”) and the number of stocks of each product in the product group associated with the option. (Bauer, [0089]; “Out of stock control task 231 provides management functions to ISSA 200 associated with item inventory 170. For example, out of stock control task 231 may perform an inventory process that determines, on command and/or periodically, a physical inventory of items included in some or all of inventory 170, such as an actual inventory of items currently resting on a store shelf”)
Regarding claim 7. The combination of Bauer in view of Murakami disclose the product providing device according to Claim 3, wherein the option presenting means presents predetermined search conditions in a selectable manner. (Bauer teaches presenting predetermined search conditions in a selectable manner by providing predefined inventory search fields (e.g., SKU, manufacture, category, location, serial number range, revenue, velocity, an inventory alert criteria) through the graphical user interface for user selection prior to executing an inventory search, see [0202-0205])
Regarding claim 8. The combination of Bauer in view of Murakami disclose the product providing device according to Claim 3, wherein the option presenting means presents only the option that satisfies the search condition. (Bauer teaches that a user specifies one or mor search conditions using predefined search fields. The inventory management system then performs the search and displays search results for live inventory corresponding to the entered search criteria, thereby presenting only the inventory items satisfying the specified search condition, see [0202] and Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 9. The combination of Bauer in view of Murakami disclose the product providing device according to Claim 1, wherein the option presenting means
Bauer substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Bauer fails to explicitly disclose the “presents an option including an inventory status image of an inventory level representing the total number of stocks in the product group associated with the option”. However, Murakami teaches
presents an option including an inventory status image of an inventory level representing the total number of stocks in the product group associated with the option. (Murakami, [0131]; “As shown in FIG. 10, in the lottery result image 254 of the present embodiment, the icon of the item acquired by the player in the multiple event lottery performed at one time is displayed in the central portion of the lottery result image 254. To. In the example of FIG. 10, by performing four event lottery, the player can obtain four items of "Character M", one "Star Jewel 50", and two "Stamina Drink + 100". It is displayed that it has been acquired.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bauer to include presents an option including an inventory status image of an inventory level representing the total number of stocks in the product group associated with the option, as taught by Murakami, where this would be performed in order to provide a smart, cost-effective way to deliver requested product to a user. See Murakami [0005].
Regarding claim 10. The combination of Bauer in view of Murakami disclose the product providing device according to Claim 1, wherein
Bauer substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Bauer fails to explicitly disclose the “the option is an image imitating a lottery box”. However, Murakami teaches
the option is an image imitating a lottery box. (Murakami, [0131]; “As shown in FIG. 10, in the lottery result image 254 of the present embodiment, the icon of the item acquired by the player in the multiple event lottery performed at one time is displayed in the central portion of the lottery result image 254. To. In the example of FIG. 10, by performing four event lottery, the player can obtain four items of "Character M", one "Star Jewel 50", and two "Stamina Drink + 100". It is displayed that it has been acquired.”, [0084]; “the stage display 208 is displayed as "first box".”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bauer to include the option is an image imitating a lottery box, as taught by Murakami, where this would be performed in order to provide a smart, cost-effective way to deliver requested product to a user. See Murakami [0005].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Murakami furthermore in view of Birkett et al. (US11113730B1, hereinafter “Birkett”).
Regarding claim 4. The combination of Bauer in view of Murakami disclose the product providing device according to Claim 3, wherein
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fail to explicitly disclose the “a prize is allocated to a product in the product group according to the type of the product, and the search condition is the number of stocks of each prize”. However, Birkett teaches
a prize is allocated to a product in the product group according to the type of the product, and the search condition is the number of stocks of each prize. (Birkett, col. 5-lines 55-61; “At a third operation 148, the content selection server 130 may select a number of random products from the eligible products. For example, a total of 100 eligible product identifiers may be identified or determined. A random selection of a subset, such as 20 product identifiers, may be selected from the larger set of 100 eligible product identifiers”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bauer to include a prize is allocated to a product in the product group according to the type of the product, and the search condition is the number of stocks of each prize, as taught by Birkett, where this would be performed in order to improve efficiency of content and/or content campaigns. See, see Birkett see col. 2-lines 37-38.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Murakami furthermore in view of Amigud et al. (US20160267426A1, hereinafter “Amigud”)
Regarding claim 5. The combination of Bauer in view of Murakami disclose the product providing device according to Claim 3, wherein
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fail to explicitly disclose the “the option presenting means causes the option to be monopolized by one user during a period of time from execution of a lottery of a product in the product group associated with the option to confirmation of the product and causes other users to have to wait to select the monopolized option during the period of time in which the option is monopolized”. However, Amigud teaches
the option presenting means causes the option to be monopolized (Amigud, [0004]; “A reserved item is removed from the available inventory of a back end system, making it unavailable for future requests”) by one user during a period of time from execution of a lottery of a product in the product group associated with the option to confirmation of the product and causes other users to have to wait to select the monopolized option during the period of time in which the option is monopolized. (Amigud, [0042-0044]; “In decision 206, anchor item reservation program 104 determines whether the item is an anchor item … In step 210, anchor item reservation program 104 assigns reservation characteristics to each anchor item. Reservation characteristics may include, but are not limited to, when the anchor item is to be reserved, a limit of the length of time of the reservation, or a limit on the number of items to reserve”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bauer to include the option presenting means causes the option to be monopolized by one user during a period of time from execution of a lottery of a product in the product group associated with the option to confirmation of the product and causes other users to have to wait to select the monopolized option during the period of time in which the option is monopolized, as taught by Amigud, where this would be performed in order to maximize potential sales and maximize customer satisfaction. See Amigud [0012].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Murakami furthermore in view of Moore et al. (US11676192B1, hereinafter “Moore”).
Regarding claim 6. The combination of Bauer in view of Murakami further in view of disclose the product providing device according to Claim 5, wherein
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fail to explicitly disclose the “the search condition is the number of users waiting to select the option”. However, Moore teaches
the search condition is the number of users waiting to select the option. (Moore, col. 7-lines 35-37; “At step 408, the program 112 determines which of the items in the ranked list are most popular among the matched users identified in the previous step”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bauer to include the search condition is the number of users waiting to select the option, as taught by Moore, where this would be performed in order to minimize, and in some aspects eliminate undesirable products from the search result rankings. See Moore col. 1-lines 50-62.
Conclusion
1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights