DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application. 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 § 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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-10, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-10 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites: a method for supporting provision of EC abroad, comprising steps of: receiving, by a support server, a request from a user terminal that has accessed a first web page of an EC site for transmission of a module for supporting purchase of a product sold on the first web page from abroad; identifying, by the support server, a country in which the user terminal is located to transmit the country to the user terminal; and transmitting, by the support server, a module adapted to the EC site to the user terminal, wherein the module, when delivery to the country is possible, inserts a tag into source code of the first web page upon its execution on the user terminal.
The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to make it easier to purchase a product (Specification ¶0005). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including a support server, a user terminal, and a module.
These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 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 an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does 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.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 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. MPEP 2106.05.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-8 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 2-8 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 2-8 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2-8 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 2-8 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
Claims 9-10 are parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claims 1-8, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 1-10 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakazato et al., US PG Pub 2020/0242627 A1 (hereafter "Nakazato").
Regarding claim 1, Nakazato discloses a method for supporting provision of EC abroad, comprising steps of:
receiving, by a support server, a request from a user terminal that has accessed a first web page of an EC site for transmission of a module for supporting purchase of a product sold on the first web page from abroad (¶¶0073, 0078, 0097-0103, and 0116-0118);
identifying, by the support server, a country in which the user terminal is located to transmit the country to the user terminal (¶¶0058-0059, 0066-0072, 0108-0110, and 0141-0146); and
transmitting, by the support server, a module adapted to the EC site to the user terminal, wherein the module, when delivery to the country is possible, inserts a tag into source code of the first web page upon its execution on the user terminal (¶¶0101-0102 and 0141-0145).
Regarding claim 2, Nakazato discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the module inserts the tag into the source code of the first web page when a predetermined tag insertion condition defined within the module is satisfied (¶¶0144-0145).
Regarding claim 3, Nakazato discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the module, when a purchase intention for the product has been indicated, transmits purchase information for purchasing the product to a payment server different from a web server providing the EC site (¶¶0022, 0065, 0114, and 0152).
Regarding claim 4, Nakazato discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the support server is different from the payment server (¶¶0114 and 0151-0152).
Regarding claim 5, Nakazato discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the tag is a translation tag for adding a translation function to the first web page (¶¶0128 and 0146).
Regarding claim 6, Nakazato discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the module inserts the tag into the source code of the first web page when the product has not been excluded as being undeliverable (¶¶0101-0102 and 0141-0145).
Regarding claim 7, Nakazato discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the tag is a chat tag for adding a chat function to the first web page (¶¶0063-0064 and 0141-0145).
Regarding claim 8, Nakazato discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the tag is a tag for changing an input screen displayed by the module adapted to the EC site (¶¶0136-0145).
Regarding claims 9-10, all of the limitations in claims 9-10 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 1-8, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Madhavan et al., US PG Pub 2022/0277276 A1, teaches a credit card as a foreign exchange market card.
Walling, US PG Pub 2013/0144764 A1, teaches a system, method and apparatus for assisting customers with point-of-sale transactions.
Non-patent literature Hillier, Mathew teaches the role of cultural context in multilingual website usability.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights