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 action is in reply to the communications filed on June 11, 2025.
The preliminary amendment filed June 11, 2025, has been accepted and entered.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The instant application's claim for priority to PCT/JP2022/046760, filed December 20, 2022, is received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 11, 2025, has been considered by the Examiner.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-12: Claim 1 recites “recommend to customer in the store.” It is unclear if these are intended to be the same customers that were previously recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting them as being the same customers.
Claims 2-10 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 11-12 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 2: Claim 2 recites “or more of product-containing means.” It is unclear if this is intended to be refer to the same product-containing means that were previously recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting them as being the same.
Further, claim 2 recites “based on product information in each product-containing means.” It is unclear if this is intended to be refer to the same product information that was previously recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting them as being the same.
Claim 3: Claim 3 recites “determine a recommended product.” It is unclear if this is intended to refer to the same recommended product that was determined in claim 1. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting them as being the same.
Further, claim 3 recites “customers in the store.” It is unclear if this is intended to refer to the same customers in the store that were previously recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting them as being the same.
Claims 4-9: Claim 4 recites “a product-containing means of the selected customer.” It is unclear if this is intended to refer to the same product-containing means that were previously recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting them as being the same and is interpreting this portion of claim 4 as reciting “the respective product-containing means of the selected customer.”
Claims 5-9 inherit the deficiencies of claim 4.
Claims 5-7: Claim 5 recites “product information in a product-containing means of each customer.” It is unclear if this is intended to be the same product information that was previously recited in claim 1. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting them as being the same.
Claims 6-7 inherit the deficiencies of claim 5.
Claim 7: Claim 7 recites “a customer whose the product-containing means.” This limitation is unclear. First, it is unclear if “a customer” is intended to be the same as “the customer” that was previously recited in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting them as being the same.
Further, it is unclear what is meant by “whose the product-containing means.” For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 7 as reciting “the respective product-containing means of the customer.”
Claim 8: Claim 8 recites “select the customer based on a storage status in a product-containing means of each of the customer.” This limitation is unclear. First, it is unclear if this is intended to be the same “product-containing means” that was previously recited in claim 1. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting them as being the same. Further, it is unclear how the customer is selected based on a storage status in a product-containing means of each of the customer. Are each of the product-containing means constantly monitored? Is there a threshold amount of storage required to be selected? Are the customers continuously ranked based on their associated storage status? Is there a capacity of a particular product determined in order to match the available capacity of the product-containing means with a particular product? For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 8 as reciting determine a storage status of a product-containing means of the customer.
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.
Independent claims 1 and 11-12 recite a device, a method, and a non-transitory medium for recommending a product. With respect to claim 1, claim elements acquiring product information and determining a recommended product, as drafted, illustrate steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Claims 11-12 recite similar limitations.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 11-12 recite outputting (transmitting) data. These limitations are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, claim 1 recites a processor and a memory. These elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claims 1 and 11-12 recite outputting (transmitting) data. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), elements such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory are considered to be computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPG2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
Further, as discussed above, claim 1 recites a processor and a memory. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, claims 1 and 11-12 are directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1. Claim 2 is directed to acquiring information, specifying a place, and determining a recommended product and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 3 is directed to determining a recommended product and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 4 is directed to selecting a customer and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 4 is further directed to outputting information which, as discussed above, is an activity that is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 5 is directed to selecting the customer and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 6 is directed to analyzing a product and selecting a customer based on the results of the analysis and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 7-9 are directed to selecting the customer and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 10 is directed to outputting information which, as discussed above, is an activity that is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
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, 4-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,050,984 B2 to Bonner et al. (hereinafter “Bonner”).
Claim 1: Bonner discloses “systems for influencing shoppers while they consider making purchasing decisions in a retail establishment” including attempting to influence shoppers during a shopper’s first moment of truth based on the shopper’s location within the retail establishment.” (See Bonner, at least Abstract). Bonner further discloses:
one or more memories storing instructions (See Bonner, at least col. 28, lines 20-25, wireless end device has memory); and
one or more processors (See Bonner, at least col. 28, lines 20-25, wireless end device has processor) configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire product information in each of product-containing means being used by customers in a store (See Bonner, at least col. 4, lines 60-67, wireless end device is operatively connected to a product scanning device; shopper scans each item intended for purchase with the product scanning device to create product selection data; col. 7, lines 20-30, product selection data includes each product's identity (by name and/or internal code), price, the identity of the product's manufacturer, the identity of the retailer's supplier, the product weight or some similar unit of measurement (volume), the date and time stamp collected each product selection collected by a product scanning device, etc.; col. 6, lines 47-60, wireless end device is coupled to an intelligent shopping cart , which is similar to a conventional shopping cart in that it is located in close proximity to the shopper and holds the shopper’s intended purchases; it is also communicatively coupled with retail environment’s network);
determine a recommended product to recommend to customers in the store based on the product information (See Bonner, at least col. 13, lines 20-31, "targeted product" means the product or product(s) that are the subject of the appropriate influential message generated by the logic engine from a variety of data, including, but not limited to, product location data, product selection data, product selection timing data, shopper location data, actual, real time shopper behavior data, shopping trip timing data, product location map, retail store map, retail store sales data, retail store advertisement data, competitive store advertisement data, local newspaper coupons and mixtures thereof; col. 16, lines 30-40, logic engine associated with the retail establishment can send the shopper an influential message that comprises targeted product information for a targeted product that is located in an aisle proximate to the shopper location based on previous product selection data so that the message is sent to the shopper just before or just as the shopper starts to leave the department; col. 11, lines 1-10, communication network routes influential messages from logic engine to wireless end devices); and
output information of the determined recommended product to an output device in the store (See Bonner, at least col. 11, lines 1-10, communication network routes influential messages from logic engine to wireless end devices; col. 16, lines 47-67, influential message based on product selection may be “We see that you have selected five two liters of soft drinks, purchase five more and receive $2.00 off” or “We see that you have selected Coca Cola,…why not try some Lay’s…for potato crisps, along with your Coca Cola?”; col. 13, lines 5-10, influential message transmitted to the wireless end device can be a text message, a video, an electronic photograph, an illustration, a hyperlink, an audio message, a vibration and mixtures thereof).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 4: Bonner further discloses:
select a customer to which the information of the determined recommended product is to be provided (See Bonner, at least col. 16, lines 30-40, logic engine associated with the retail establishment can send the shopper an influential message that comprises targeted product information for a targeted product that is located in an aisle proximate to the shopper location based on previous product selection data so that the message is sent to the shopper just before or just as the shopper starts to leave the department); and
output information of the recommended product to an output device within a predetermined distance from a product-containing means of the selected customer (See Bonner, at least col. 16, lines 30-40, logic engine associated with the retail establishment can send the shopper an influential message that comprises targeted product information for a targeted product that is located in an aisle proximate to the shopper location based on previous product selection data so that the message is sent to the shopper just before or just as the shopper starts to leave the department; col. 16, lines 47-67, influential message based on product selection may be “We see that you have selected five two liters of soft drinks, purchase five more and receive $2.00 off”, i.e., shopper is still in the soft drink section; col. 6, lines 47-60, wireless end device is coupled to an intelligent shopping cart , which is similar to a conventional shopping cart in that it is located in close proximity to the shopper and holds the shopper’s intended purchases; it is also communicatively coupled with retail environment’s network).
Claim 5: Bonner further discloses select the customer based on product information in a product-containing means of each customer (See Bonner, at least col. 16, lines 30-40, logic engine associated with the retail establishment can send the shopper an influential message that comprises targeted product information for a targeted product that is located in an aisle proximate to the shopper location based on previous product selection data so that the message is sent to the shopper just before or just as the shopper starts to leave the department; col. 16, lines 47-67, influential message based on product selection may be “We see that you have selected five two liters of soft drinks, purchase five more and receive $2.00 off” or “We see that you have selected Coca Cola,…why not try some Lay’s…for potato crisps, along with your Coca Cola?”, i.e., recommendation is based on product scanned by customer in customer’s cart (the Coca Cola)).
Claim 6: Bonner further discloses analyze a product that is likely to be purchased by each customer based on product information of each of the customer, and selects the customer based on a result of the analysis (See Bonner, at least col. 14, lines 50-67, retail establishment categorizes shoppers based on demographics and previously exhibited shopping behavior; retail establishment believes professional African American women in the 25-35 age bracket who are brand loyal to Pantene Pro V products will buy Pantene Pro-V Relaxed and Natural Moisturized Shampoo; because of this, retail establishment will send influential message to Mariah regarding this targeted product because she is a 29-year old professional African American woman who she is a brand loyal shopper who purchases Pantene Pro V products).
Claim 7: Bonner further discloses select, as the customer to which the information of the determined recommended product is to be provided, a customer whose the product-containing means does not include the recommended product (See Bonner, at least col. 16, lines 30-40, logic engine associated with the retail establishment can send the shopper an influential message that comprises targeted product information for a targeted product that is located in an aisle proximate to the shopper location based on previous product selection data so that the message is sent to the shopper just before or just as the shopper starts to leave the department; col. 16, lines 47-67, influential message based on product selection may be “We see that you have selected five two liters of soft drinks, purchase five more and receive $2.00 off”, i.e., shopper only has five 2-liters; the influential message is for five more).
Claim 9: Bonner further discloses select, as the customer to which the information of the determined recommended product is to be provided, a customer facing a display direction of the recommended product (See Bonner, at least col. shopper enters the produce section of a store, preparing to select a pre-determined fruit or vegetable; shopper receives an inducement from the logic engine to make a different choice for another fruit or vegetable offering or an inducement to influence the shopper to purchase more than what the shopper had originally intended on purchasing).
Claim 10: Bonner further discloses output an area map, a coupon, price change information, or inventory replenishment information related to a recommended product as information of the recommended product (See Bonner, at least col. 14, lines 50-67, retail establishment categorizes shoppers based on demographics and previously exhibited shopping behavior; retail establishment believes professional African American women in the 25-35 age bracket who are brand loyal to Pantene Pro V products will buy Pantene Pro-V Relaxed and Natural Moisturized Shampoo; because of this, retail establishment will send influential message to Mariah regarding this targeted product because she is a 29-year old professional African American woman who she is a brand loyal shopper who purchases Pantene Pro V products; Mariah may receive an electronic coupon for the targeted product, Pantene Pro-V Relaxed and Natural Moisturized Shampoo, as part of the influential message).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0232763 A1 to Ahuja et al. (hereinafter “Ahuja”).
Bonner discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Bonner further discloses further acquire position information of each of the product-containing means (See Bonner, at least col. 6, lines 47-61, wireless end device is temporarily coupled to an "intelligent shopping cart”; col. 21, lines 25-40, wireless end devices receive signals from at least three of the information routers in order to triangulate the position of the wireless end device or the intelligent shopping cart).
Bonner does not expressly disclose specify, based on the position information, a sales place in which a predetermined number or more of product-containing means exist; and determine a recommended product to be recommended to customers in the store based on product information in each product-containing means existing in the specified sales place.
However, Ahuja discloses a “computerized sales tool used to stimulate sales of products and related products in a retail outlet. The tool comprises an in-store computer server, a database that stores shoppers' shopping profiles, a computer based, intelligent information retrieval system, and gaze sensors and shopper identification sensors mounted on a product rack in a store. A shopper using a mobile computing device is identified by the shopper identification sensor and the gaze sensor senses the shopper's interest in a product.” (See Ahuja, at least Abstract). Ahuja further discloses:
specify, based on the position information, a sales place in which a predetermined number or more of product-containing means exist (See Ahuja, at least para. [0032], other shoppers shopping in the store), and
determine a recommended product to be recommended to customers in the store based on product information in each product-containing means existing in the specified sales place (See Ahuja, at least para. [0032], Sam is shopping in store and gets a notification on his phone about possible recommendations based on a social profile mapping to other shoppers in the store; para. [0033], if there are other shoppers his age who are currently buying linn jacks, the system gives Sam a recommendation for a linen jacket).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the shopping system and method of Bonner the ability of specify, based on the position information, a sales place in which a predetermined number or more of product-containing means exist; and determine a recommended product to be recommended to customers in the store based on product information in each product-containing means existing in the specified sales place as disclosed by Ahuja since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of “enhancing a shopper’s in-store experience.” (See Ahuja, at least para. [0007]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2005/0149414 A1 to Schrodt et al. (hereinafter “Schrodt”).
Bonner discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Bonner does not expressly disclose determine a recommended product to be recommended to customers in the store based on inventory information in the store in a case where there is a plurality of recommended product candidates.
However, Schrodt discloses an “RFID method and system for preventing product out-of-stock conditions in a retailer supply chain.” (See Schrodt, at least Abstract). Schrodt further discloses that each “product may be associated with at least one smart tag, the smart tags containing identification information regarding their respective product. RFID smart tag readers are used to obtain real time inventory data that may be used in a method for prevent product out-of-stock conditions.” (See Schrodt, at least Abstract). Schrodt further discloses determine a recommended product to be recommended to customers in the store based on inventory information in the store in a case where there is a plurality of recommended product candidates (See Schrodt, at least para. [0093], retailer has 100 jars of Tom's Strawberry Jelly and 500 jars of Jerry's Strawberry Jelly in a retailer inventory location; customer is looking for Tom's Strawberry Jelly; retailer suggests Jerry's Strawberry Jelly with an incentive because Jerry’s Strawberry Jelly inventory level is higher than the desired inventory level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the shopping system and method of Bonner the ability to determine a recommended product to be recommended to customers in the store based on inventory information in the store in a case where there is a plurality of recommended product candidates as disclosed by Schrodt since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce “the number of lost sales that may result from out-of-stock events.” (See Schrodt, at least Abstract).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonner as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 2013/0103539 A1 to Abraham et al. (hereinafter “Abraham”).
Bonner discloses all the limitations of claim 4 discussed above.
Bonner does not expressly disclose select the customer based on a storage status in a product-containing means of each of the customer.
However, Abraham discloses a system and method of “logging a customer into a computerized shopping system on-premises of a store, recalling a shopping list associated with the customer” and generating a “route through the store…according to one or more items on the shopping list.” (See Abraham, at least Abstract). Abraham further discloses select the customer based on a storage status in a product-containing means of each of the customer (See Abraham, at least para. [0050], system determines how empty or full shopping cart is at any given time using video capture and analysis; para. [0071], a customer with a cart that is nearly full can be routed to an exit path).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the shopping system and method of Bonner the ability to select the customer based on a storage status in a product-containing means of each of the customer as disclosed by Abraham since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “direct the customer to a checkout station that has a particular promotion item determined to be of interest to the customer.” (See Abraham, at least para. [0070]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights