DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
A preliminary amendment was filed on the filing date of August 15, 2025, in which claims 12-24 were cancelled. Claims 1-11 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Priority
The instant application has a filing date of August 15, 2025. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. The instant application is a national phase under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT International Application No. PCT/JP2024/006218 (filed on February 21, 2024), which claims the benefit of priority from Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-025392 (filed on February 21, 2023), Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-079561 (filed on May 12, 2023), Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-087854 (filed on May 29, 2023), and Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-091118 (filed on June 1, 2023). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 15, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a setting unit that sets a grant rate of a point in accordance with stock information on a consumer product” recited in claim 1. Examiner notes the setting unit is also recited in claims 2-4.
“a granting unit that grants the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate at the time at which the consumer product has been purchased” recited in claim 1.
“an acceptance unit that accepts grant rate information related to a grant rate of a point from a store terminal device” recited in claim 6.
“a setting unit that sets the grant rate of the point in accordance with the grant rate information that has been accepted by the acceptance unit” recited in claim 6.
“a granting unit that grants the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate that has been set by the setting unit” recited in claim 6.
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.
v Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 5 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), while claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are drawn to information processing apparatus (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1-11 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 5 and 6) recites/describes the following steps;
sets a grant rate of a point in accordance with stock information on a consumer product
grants the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate at the time at which the consumer product has been purchased
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a process for setting a reward/loyalty point issuance rate in accordance with stock information (e.g., based on the product expiration date, based on a remaining quantity of product in stock, etc.), which amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally and/or alternatively, each of the above-recited steps/functions, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) performing one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 5 and 6 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“an information processing apparatus comprising: a setting unit that...and a granting unit that...” (claim 1)
“...the setting unit...” (claims 2-4)
“an information processing apparatus comprising: an acceptance unit that...a setting unit that...and a granting unit that...” (claim 6)
“...from a store terminal device...” (claim 6)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an information processing apparatus comprising: a setting unit that...and a granting unit that...” (claim 1) or “...the setting unit...” (claims 2-4) or “an information processing apparatus comprising: an acceptance unit that...a setting unit that...and a granting unit that...” (claim 6) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own disclosure explains that these “additional” elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., the as-filed specification at paragraphs [0093]-[0106] “...program that is installed in the computer 1200 is able to cause the computer 1200 to function as one or a plurality of "units"...The program as described above may be executed by a CPU... The computer readable instruction may be provided to a general purpose computer...”). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “...from a store terminal device...” (claim 6) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. For example, Applicant’s as-filed specification suggests that it is advantageous to implement the claimed business process because doing so can help retailer to manage their product stock more efficiently (e.g., reduce waste), particularity for perishable products, by adjusting the level of incentivization/motivation for purchasing their products (see, for example, Applicant’s as-filed disclosure at paragraphs [0004], [0005] & [0108], ). These are non-technical business advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved process for setting a reward/loyalty point issuance rate).
Independent claim 5 and dependent claims 7-11 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in independent claim 5 and respective dependent claims 7-11 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 7 recites “wherein the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is changed in accordance with date of sale information that indicates a date on which a consumer product targeted for granting of the point is sold in a store”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 7. This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. The same logic applies to each of the other dependent claims, whose limitations are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and clarity. With respect to the other dependent claims not specifically listed here - each of the limitations/elements recited in these dependent claims other than those identified as being “additional” elements above (at the beginning of the Prong One analysis), are further part of the abstract idea encompassed by each respective dependent claim (i.e. it should be understood that these limitations are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an information processing apparatus comprising: a setting unit that...and a granting unit that...” (claim 1) or “...the setting unit...” (claims 2-4) or “an information processing apparatus comprising: an acceptance unit that...a setting unit that...and a granting unit that...” (claim 6) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “...from a store terminal device...” (claim 6) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claim 5 and dependent claims 7-11 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in independent claim 5 and respective dependent claims 7-11is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
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 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
v Claims 1 and 5 recite the phrase "grants the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate at the time at which the consumer product has been purchased." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “grants the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate at the time at which the consumer product has been purchased” will be interpreted as being “grants the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate at [[the]]a time at which the consumer product has been purchased.”
Each of dependent claims 2-5 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
v Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are indefinite for claiming both an apparatus and what appears to be method steps of using the apparatus. Per MPEP 2173.05(p) “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)”. For example, claims 1 and 6 each recite “an information processing apparatus comprising...a granting unit that grants the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate”. It is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that has a granting unit configured to perform the claimed function (e.g., configured to grant the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate), or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the granting unit to perform the function (e.g., grant the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate). Claim 2 relatedly recites “the apparatus of claim 1; wherein...the setting unit increases the grant rate as a period of time remaining until an expiration date of the consumer product decreases”. Claim 7 similarly recites “the apparatus of claim 6; wherein the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is changed in accordance with date of sale information that indicates a date on which a consumer product targeted for granting of the point is sold in a store”. Each of claims 1-4 and 6-11 recite limitations with this type of language. Although this may be caused by translation into English from Japanese, the language nevertheless results in indefiniteness. Therefore, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly and distinctly claim the subject matter which the application regards as the invention.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim limitations as follows:
“a setting unit that sets a grant rate of a point in accordance with stock information on a consumer product” (claim 1) will be interpreted as “a setting unit configured to set a grant rate of a point in accordance with stock information on a consumer product”
“a granting unit that grants the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate at the time at which the consumer product has been purchased” (claim 1) will be interpreted as “a granting unit configured to grant the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate at the time at which the consumer product has been purchased”
“the setting unit increases the grant rate as a period of time remaining until an expiration date of the consumer product decreases” (claim 2) will be interpreted as “the setting unit is further configured to increase ”
“the setting unit increases the grant rate as a quantity of the consumer products in stock increases” (claim 3) will be interpreted as “the setting unit is further configured to increase
“wherein the setting unit sets the grant rate for each consumer product” (claim 4) will be interpreted as “wherein the setting unit is further configured to set[[s]] the grant rate for each consumer product”
“an acceptance unit that accepts grant rate information related to a grant rate of a point from a store terminal device” (claim 6) will be interpreted as “an acceptance unit configured to accept grant rate information related to a grant rate of a point from a store terminal device”
“a setting unit that sets the grant rate of the point in accordance with the grant rate information that has been accepted by the acceptance unit” (claim 6) will be interpreted as “a setting unit configured to set the grant rate of the point in accordance with the grant rate information that has been accepted by the acceptance unit”
“a granting unit that grants the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate that has been set by the setting unit” (claim 6) will be interpreted as “a granting unit configured to grant the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate that has been set by the setting unit”
“wherein the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is changed in accordance with date of sale information that indicates a date on which a consumer product targeted for granting of the point is sold in a store” (claim 7) will be interpreted as “wherein the setting unit is further configured to change the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information ”
“wherein the setting unit is further configured to change the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information ” (claim 8) will be interpreted as
“wherein, in a case where an event is held in a vicinity of a store on a date on which a consumer product targeted for granting of the point is sold in the store, the setting unit is further configured to change the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information” (claim 9) will be interpreted as
“wherein the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is changed in accordance with expiration date information that is related to an expiration date of a consumer product targeted for granting of the point” (claim 10) will be interpreted as “wherein the setting unit is further configured to change the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information ”
“wherein the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is set for each consumer product that is targeted for granting of the point” (claim 11) will be interpreted as “wherein the setting unit is further configured to set the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information ”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 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.
v Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Daisuke et al. (Japanese PG Pub No. 2020-0107028 (corresponding to Japanese Application Number JP2018244344A), July 9, 2020 - hereinafter "Daisuke”)
With respect to claims 1 and 5, Daisuke teaches an information processing apparatus (claim 1) and an information processing method (claim 5) comprising;
a setting unit that sets a grant rate of a point in accordance with stock information on a consumer product; and ([0008]-[0011] “encourage the purchase of a product with a short remaining period in a sales transaction of a product for which expiration date information such as a best-before date is set...remaining period calculation...based on current time...and the time limit information, a purchase incentive point information determination unit that determines purchase incentive point information...based on...the remaining period...point awarding rate set...point information determination unit determines the number of points to be given based on a point giving rate set according to the product identification information and the remaining period as the purchase incentive point information...” –incentive point information determination unit (i.e., setting unit) determines the rate at which incentive points will be provided (i.e., sets a grant rate) according to at least a period of time remaining until an expiration date of the consumer product decreases (i.e., in accordance with stock information on a consumer product), [0068]-[0071] “best-before date...different point provision rate curves...remaining period...point awarding rate...”, see also [0017]-[0019] & [0023]-[0024] & [0055]-[0058])
a granting unit that grants the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate at the time at which the consumer product has been purchased ([0014] “point granting request information transmission unit that generates point granting request information including the granted number or the granted rate of the adjusted purchase incentive point for adding the adjusted purchase incentive point to the point account of the user and transmits the point granting request information to a point management device that manages the point account.” – a point granting request information transmission unit (granting unit) issues points to product purchasers in accordance with the set grant rate when the product is purchased (i.e., grants the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate at the time at which the consumer product has been purchased), see also [0023]-[0024] & [0055]-[0058] & [0098]-[0099] & [0017]-[0018])
With respect to claim 2, Daisuke teaches the apparatus of claim 1;
wherein the stock information includes expiration date information on the consumer product, and the setting unit increases the grant rate as a period of time remaining until an expiration date of the consumer product decreases ([0008]-[0011] “encourage the purchase of a product with a short remaining period in a sales transaction of a product for which expiration date information such as a best-before date is set...remaining period calculation...based on current time...and the time limit information, a purchase incentive point information determination unit that determines purchase incentive point information...based on...the remaining period...point awarding rate set...point information determination unit determines the number of points to be given based on a point giving rate set according to the product identification information and the remaining period as the purchase incentive point information...”, [0068]-[0071] “best-before date...different point provision rate curves...remaining period...point awarding rate...”,. see also [0023]-[0026] & [0055]-[0058] & [0017]-[0018] & [0040]-[0042] & [0090])
With respect to claim 4, Daisuke teaches the apparatus of claim 1;
wherein the setting unit sets the grant rate for each consumer product ([0029] & [0047] & [0064]-[0068] does this process for each product, see also [0023]-[0024] & [0055]-[0058] & [0017]-[0018])
With respect to claim 6, Daisuke teaches an information processing apparatus comprising;
an acceptance unit that accepts grant rate information related to a grant rate of a point from a store terminal device; ([0047]-[0048] point giving rate table received by system via input/output interface (acceptance unit), [0044]-[0045] other information is also received such as expiration date info and product info (all of which is used to determine grant rate and is therefore grant rate information related to grant rate), [0049]-[0050] other criterion set by administrator/merchant, [0030] & [0052]-[0053] & [0084]-[0085] & [0092] received from POS terminal (store terminal device), [0068] from store mobile terminal (another store terminal device))
a setting unit that sets the grant rate of the point in accordance with the grant rate information that has been accepted by the acceptance unit; and ([0008]-[0011] “encourage the purchase of a product with a short remaining period in a sales transaction of a product for which expiration date information such as a best-before date is set...remaining period calculation...based on current time...and the time limit information, a purchase incentive point information determination unit that determines purchase incentive point information...based on...the remaining period...point awarding rate set...point information determination unit determines the number of points to be given based on a point giving rate set according to the product identification information and the remaining period as the purchase incentive point information...” –incentive point information determination unit (i.e., setting unit) determines the rate at which incentive points will be provided (i.e., sets a grant rate) according to at least a period of time remaining until an expiration date of the consumer product decreases and the point giving table and expiration date info (i.e., in accordance with grant rate information related to a grant rate that was accepted by acceptance unit), [0068]-[0071] “best-before date...different point provision rate curves...remaining period...point awarding rate...”, see also [0017]-[0019] & [0023]-[0024] & [0055]-[0058])
a granting unit that grants the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate that has been set by the setting unit ([0014] “point granting request information transmission unit that generates point granting request information including the granted number or the granted rate of the adjusted purchase incentive point for adding the adjusted purchase incentive point to the point account of the user and transmits the point granting request information to a point management device that manages the point account.” – a point granting request information transmission unit (granting unit) issues points to product purchasers in accordance with the set grant rate when the product is purchased (i.e., grants the point to a user in accordance with the grant rate at the time at which the consumer product has been purchased), see also [0023]-[0024] & [0055]-[0058] & [0098]-[0099] & [0017]-[0018])
With respect to claim 7, Daisuke teaches the apparatus of claim 6;
wherein the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is changed in accordance with date of sale information that indicates a date on which a consumer product targeted for granting of the point is sold in a store ([0076]-[0079] “current time...current date information and expiration date information... incentive point information determined according to the remaining period calculated based on the time limit information and the current time information and the product information”, [0102] “calculates remaining period in real time based on...current time...”, see also [0081] & [0084]-[0088])
With respect to claim 10, Daisuke teaches the apparatus of claim 6;
wherein the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is changed in accordance with expiration date information that is related to an expiration date of a consumer product targeted for granting of the point ([0008]-[0011] “encourage the purchase of a product with a short remaining period in a sales transaction of a product for which expiration date information such as a best-before date is set...remaining period calculation...based on current time...and the time limit information, a purchase incentive point information determination unit that determines purchase incentive point information...based on...the remaining period...point awarding rate set...point information determination unit determines the number of points to be given based on a point giving rate set according to the product identification information and the remaining period as the purchase incentive point information...”, [0068]-[0071] “best-before date...different point provision rate curves...remaining period...point awarding rate...”,. see also [0023]-[0026] & [0055]-[0058] & [0017]-[0018] & [0040]-[0042] & [0090])
With respect to claim 11, Daisuke teaches the apparatus of claim 6;
wherein the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is set for each consumer product that is targeted for granting of the point ([0029] & [0047] & [0064]-[0068] does this process for each product, see also [0023]-[0024] & [0055]-[0058] & [0017]-[0018])
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 of this title, 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.
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 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.
v Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daisuke et al. (Japanese PG Pub No. 2020-0107028 (corresponding to Japanese Application Number JP2018244344A), July 9, 2020 - hereinafter "Daisuke”) in view of Wong (U.S. PG Pub No. 2019/0378155, December 12, 2019 - hereinafter "Wong”)
With respect to claim 3, Daisuke teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Although Daisuke does mention the conditions taken into consideration for the amount of points being issued may include the number of product in stock ([0019]), Daisuke does not elaborate on this point. Daisuke does not appear to disclose,
wherein the stock information includes quantity in stock information on the consumer products, and the setting unit increases the grant rate as a quantity of the consumer products in stock increases
However, Wong discloses
wherein the stock information includes quantity in stock information on the consumer products, and the setting unit increases the grant rate as a quantity of the consumer products in stock increases ([0007] “perishable product inventory control system configured to predict a perishable product surplus quantity at a location and time determined as a function of product expiration time, associate the predicted product surplus to a shopper seeking the product at the predicted location and time, and, automatically offer the shopper a portion of the product surplus discounted as a function of the perishable product surplus expiration time. In an illustrative example, the product surplus quantity, location, and time may be calculated based on inventory level and consumption rate. The product surplus location and time may be, for example, a restaurant's closing time, permitting the shopper to receive an offer to purchase a meal discounted as a function of time remaining until closing. Various examples may advantageously reduce cost and waste, based on matching shoppers with perishable products discounted as a function of product expiration time.” – therefore incentive/discount is a function of current stock quantity which is used to predict surplus product, see also [0024]-[0025] where product inventory (quantity in stock information) is used to determine the incentive amount, [0043])
Wong suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the stock information includes quantity in stock information on the consumer products, and the setting unit increases the grant rate as a quantity of the consumer products in stock increases, because such supply information can be helpful for more accurately managing the amount of incentive required to sell products before they are no longer sellable ([0004]-[0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Daisuke to include wherein the stock information includes quantity in stock information on the consumer products, and the setting unit increases the grant rate as a quantity of the consumer products in stock increases, as taught by Wong, because such supply information can be helpful for more accurately managing the amount of incentive required to sell products before they are no longer sellable.
v Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daisuke et al. (Japanese PG Pub No. 2020-0107028 (corresponding to Japanese Application Number JP2018244344A), July 9, 2020 - hereinafter "Daisuke”) in view of Renfroe (U.S. PG Pub No. 2014/0351068 November 27, 2014 - hereinafter "Renfroe”)
With respect to claim 8, Daisuke teaches the apparatus of claim 6. Daisuke does not appear to disclose,
wherein the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is changed in accordance with event information related to an event that is held in a vicinity of a store
However, Renfroe discloses
wherein the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is changed in accordance with event information related to an event that is held in a vicinity of a store ([0032] “the inventory information being input into the system may allow the management to know how much is being used and when....The information can then be analyzed using data modeling to predict patterns and plan accordingly. For instance, a bar and restaurant owner may see a large spike in mimosa and Bloody Mary orders on a Sunday for brunch. The system could be used to detect and predict that every Sunday there will be a spike in these orders. Based on the available inventory information, the inventory management component could also have the ability to determine the amount of champagne and orange juice, or vodka and tomato juice, to stock in order to meet historical demand for the past month's worth of Sundays, or the past year's worth, or the past three years' worth, etc., including taking into account growing business and special occasions. The system could also analyze data relating to local events, which tend to drive customer behavior. For example, the system could receive input that a high school football team home game is scheduled for a particular day and that customers tend to order large quantities of food after high school football team home games...” – demand determined/modeled based on event information related to an event in the vicinity of the store, [0092]-[0093] price/promotion (grant rate per combination with Daisuke) is based on predicted demand which per [0032] is based on local event)
Renfroe suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is changed in accordance with event information related to an event that is held in a vicinity of a store, because event information related to an event that is held in a vicinity of a store can be used to more accurately model/predict demand for a product which can then be used to determine how to more accurately value this product for a particular day which is useful for determining optimal price/value incentivization required to sell the product ([0032] & [0092]-[0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Daisuke to include wherein the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is changed in accordance with event information related to an event that is held in a vicinity of a store, as taught by Renfroe, because such supply information can be helpful for more accurately managing the amount of incentive required to sell products before they are no longer sellable.
With respect to claim 9, Daisuke teaches the apparatus of claim 6. Daisuke does not appear to disclose,
wherein in a case where an event is held in a vicinity of a store on a date on which a consumer product targeted for granting of the point is sold in the store, the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is changed so as to be the grant rate that is equal to or less than the grant rate that is set on a date on which the event is not held
However, Renfroe discloses
wherein in a case where an event is held in a vicinity of a store on a date on which a consumer product targeted for granting of the point is sold in the store, the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is changed so as to be the grant rate that is equal to or less than the grant rate that is set on a date on which the event is not held ([0032] “the inventory information being input into the system may allow the management to know how much is being used and when....The information can then be analyzed using data modeling to predict patterns and plan accordingly. For instance, a bar and restaurant owner may see a large spike in mimosa and Bloody Mary orders on a Sunday for brunch. The system could be used to detect and predict that every Sunday there will be a spike in these orders. Based on the available inventory information, the inventory management component could also have the ability to determine the amount of champagne and orange juice, or vodka and tomato juice, to stock in order to meet historical demand for the past month's worth of Sundays, or the past year's worth, or the past three years' worth, etc., including taking into account growing business and special occasions. The system could also analyze data relating to local events, which tend to drive customer behavior. For example, the system could receive input that a high school football team home game is scheduled for a particular day and that customers tend to order large quantities of food after high school football team home games...” – demand determined/modeled based on event information related to an event in the vicinity of the store, [0092]-[0093] price/promotion (grant rate per combination with Daisuke) is changed based on daily predicted demand which per [0032] is based on local event)
Renfroe suggests it is advantageous to include wherein in a case where an event is held in a vicinity of a store on a date on which a consumer product targeted for granting of the point is sold in the store, the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is changed so as to be the grant rate that is equal to or less than the grant rate that is set on a date on which the event is not held, because event information related to an event that is held in a vicinity of a store can be used to more accurately model/predict demand for a product which can then be used to determine how to more accurately value this product for a particular day which is useful for determining optimal price/value incentivization required to sell the product ([0032] & [0092]-[0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Daisuke to include wherein in a case where an event is held in a vicinity of a store on a date on which a consumer product targeted for granting of the point is sold in the store, the grant rate indicated by the grant rate information is changed so as to be the grant rate that is equal to or less than the grant rate that is set on a date on which the event is not held, as taught by Renfroe, because such supply information can be helpful for more accurately managing the amount of incentive required to sell products before they are no longer sellable.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Rodriguez Bravo (U.S. PG Pub No. 2020/0167814, May 28, 2020) teaches rewarding product purchasers with loyalty points at a grant rate that is inversely proportional to the amount of time remaining before the product’s expiration date.
Esprey (U.S. PG Pub No. 2012/002947, January 26, 2012) teaches rewarding product purchasers with a greater amount of loyalty points as the amount of time remaining before the product’s expiration date decreases.
High et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2017/0278053, September 28, 2017) teaches determining day-specific demand for products based on local/regional events occurring in the vicinity of the store ([0040] & [0065]-[0067])
Ganesh et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2019/0156369, May 23, 2019) teaches that specific demand for products may be based on local/regional events occurring in the vicinity of the store and that promotions can be optimized
Marhak et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2017/0109776, April 20, 2017) teaches specific demand for products may be based on local/regional events occurring in the vicinity of the store and that promotions can be optimized
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
