Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 8271315 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US Patent 8271315 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention (i.e., before the effective priority date of May 7, 2001). The core objective of US8271315, as stated in its abstract, is to "improve quality of service for customers by sharing and utilizing personal information on customers among variety of industries." This objective itself provides a strong motivation for a POSITA to combine existing technologies to achieve cross-industry data sharing for targeted marketing.

Legal Standard for Obviousness

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent may not be obtained 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." To establish obviousness, there must be some motivation or reason for a POSITA to combine the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success.

Obviousness of Independent Claim 1 (Personal Information Utilization System)

Claim 1 describes a system for a "second commodity provider" to identify potential customers based on information from a "first commodity provider."

Combination: US20010037294A1 (Freishtat) in combination with US7031934B2 (Hitachi) and US20020019817A1 (IBM).

Analysis:

1. Freishtat (US20010037294A1) as a Primary Reference: Freishtat describes a system for facilitating "syndicated transactions" by sharing customer data among "multiple participants" from "different industries" to create integrated offerings and bundled products or services. This directly teaches the fundamental concept of cross-industry sharing of customer information to facilitate related transactions, which is the stated objective of US8271315. Freishtat inherently discloses:

   • A "personal information storage means" for customer data.
   • Storing "first commodity provision information" (customer data related to initial transactions) provided by a "first commodity provider."
   • A scenario where a "second commodity provider" desires customer information from the "first commodity provider's" transactions.
   • A "communication means" for sharing this information.

2. Motivation to Combine with Hitachi (US7031934B2): Freishtat establishes the concept of cross-industry data sharing for syndicated transactions. However, to practically implement such a system, a POSITA would need a mechanism to identify specific customers for targeted offerings. Hitachi teaches an electronic commerce system that manages commercial information, product, and customer data, and delivers targeted commercial information to users based on their attributes and preferences or by accumulating purchasing history for personalized recommendations.

   • A POSITA, seeking to build out Freishtat's syndicated transaction system, would find it obvious to integrate the targeted marketing capabilities of Hitachi. Specifically, the steps of Claim 1(a)-(e) would be an obvious implementation:
     • (a) receiving second commodity provision information: A "second commodity provider" (e.g., a furniture vendor) providing an inquiry (second commodity provision information) to the central system to find customers for a related product (e.g., furniture).
     • (b) checking said received second commodity provision information against the first commodity provision information: The system using existing "first commodity provision information" (e.g., a house purchase from a housing vendor, which is the "first commodity") as criteria for identifying relevant customers.
     • (c) identifying, as a result of said checking, at least one specific information disclosing person...by using the second commodity provision information as a key such that the second commodity provision information at least partially coincides with the first commodity provision information: Identifying individuals who match the search criteria (e.g., those who recently purchased a house). Hitachi's teaching of matching customer data and purchasing history for targeted offerings makes this identification step obvious in the context of Freishtat's cross-industry objective.
     • (d) reading out at least a portion of the personal information: Retrieving the relevant personal information of identified individuals.
     • (e) transmitting said read out at least a portion of the personal information to said information search side terminal: Sending this information to the "second commodity provider."
   • The combination provides a clear and obvious path to enabling a furniture vendor (second commodity provider) to identify individuals who have purchased a house (first commodity provision information) to offer them furniture, directly aligning with the examples provided in US8271315. US20050240492A1 (Zipandshop L.L.C.) further reinforces this motivation by describing a system for matching users with ancillary services (like mortgages or moving services) based on a primary purchase like real estate.

3. Motivation to Combine with IBM (US20020019817A1): Given that the system involves sharing "personal information," a critical consideration for any commercially viable system would be privacy and user control. IBM discloses a system and method enabling users to selectively disclose their personal information to businesses, often in exchange for incentives, and encompasses managing user preferences for disclosure.

   • A POSITA would find it obvious to incorporate such privacy management features into a system for cross-industry personal information utilization. This ensures user consent and addresses privacy concerns, which are essential for the widespread adoption and legality of such a system. This combination directly anticipates or makes obvious the "information on disclosure limits" feature mentioned in dependent claims 5 and 8 of US8271315. US20020103806A1 (Yamanoue) further supports this by teaching systems for controlling the supply of data, including personal information, and addressing data privacy and access management.

Therefore, a POSITA, motivated to implement a system for sharing customer data across industries for syndicated transactions (Freishtat) and improve customer service by providing targeted offerings, would obviously combine known methods for targeted marketing based on purchase history (Hitachi/Sony/Zipandshop) with established mechanisms for managing personal information privacy and disclosure limits (IBM/Yamanoue).

Obviousness of Independent Claim 2 (Non-Transitory Computer-Readable Medium with Program)

Claim 2 describes a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a program that, when executed, performs a method substantially similar to the system described in Claim 1.

Analysis:
The obviousness analysis for Claim 1 directly applies to Claim 2. Once the system described in Claim 1 is rendered obvious by the combination of prior art, implementing the corresponding method steps as a computer program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium would be an obvious design choice for a POSITA in the field of software development. All the functional steps of receiving, checking, identifying, reading out, and transmitting information are standard operations performed by computer programs. The prior art references themselves (e.g., Freishtat, Hitachi, IBM, Yamanoue) discuss systems and methods, often implying or explicitly mentioning their implementation via software or computer-readable media.

Obviousness of Dependent Claims

Many of the dependent claims (e.g., Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) are made obvious by the same combinations:

• Claims 3 & 6 (Registration of commodity provision information): The process of associating personal information with commodity provision information, receiving it from an "information register side terminal," checking, identifying, and registering it in the storage means (as described in 3 and 6) would be an obvious administrative function for any system like Freishtat's or Hitachi's that relies on accumulating and managing customer transaction data. Freishtat's system of "syndicated transactions" necessarily implies the registration of initial transaction data by the "first commodity provider."
• Claims 4 & 7 (Information searching person): Specifying the "information searching person" as a manufacturer, sales vendor, service trader, self-governing body, or education foundation simply lists various entities that would logically benefit from such a cross-industry information sharing system, and thus provides a common motivation for using such a system, rather than adding a non-obvious limitation.
• Claims 5 & 8 (Disclosure limits): These claims explicitly describe managing personal information in accordance with "information on disclosure limits." As discussed in the independent claims analysis, the incorporation of privacy controls, as taught by IBM (US20020019817A1) and Yamanoue (US20020103806A1), would be an obvious and necessary feature for a personal information sharing system, driven by ethical, legal, and practical considerations.
• Claims 9 & 10 (Automatic registration, specific information): The automatic registration of commodity provision information (Claim 9) and the specific types of information (name of item, vendor, date) in commodity provision information (Claim 10) are conventional features in database management and e-commerce systems, exemplified by Hitachi's detailed approach to storing purchase history.
• Claim 11 (Identifying previously unknown identity): The act of "determining an identity, previously unknown to be associated with the second commodity provision information" is the inherent and obvious outcome of using a search key (second commodity provision information) to match against a database containing other information (first commodity provision information and associated personal details), as taught by the combination of Freishtat and Hitachi.
• Claims 13 & 14 (Service as a commodity): Defining "commodity" to include "service" is explicitly stated in the background and definitions of US8271315 itself and is a common understanding in commerce and information systems. The prior art references generally use "goods/services" interchangeably. For example, Freishtat mentions "goods or services" and Zipandshop describes "commodity-like goods/services."

In conclusion, the core claims of US Patent 8271315, and its dependent claims, describe a logical combination of well-known information sharing, targeted marketing, and privacy management techniques prevalent in the prior art before the patent's priority date. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to create a system for improved cross-industry customer identification and service, as described by the patent.