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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action in response to amendments received on 6/25/26.
Claim 20 has been previously cancelled.
Claims 1-2,13-14 have been amended.
Therefore, Claims 1-19, 21 are now pending and have been addressed below.
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 1-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 1-11, 12,16-19, 21 are directed to a system, claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory medium and claims 13-14 are directed to a method. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 1 Identifying a Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, prong 1, Claims 1-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 2, 12-15 recite methods for providing an answer to user question including obtain registered user information and registered product information on the registered user information; the registered user information including a first identifier to identify a registered user that is a user who has been registered; the registered product information including a second identifier to identify a registered product that is a product associated with the registered user; receiving an input related to a question from a questioning user, the questioning user being a user who asks a question about a product; obtaining questioning user information on the questioning user the questioning user information including a third identifier to identify the questioning user; storing the registered user information and the registered product for each of registered users including the registered user; generate in response to the input related to a question, a candidate answer regarding one or more registered products associated with the registered user information, by referring to one or more items of registered product information corresponding to the one or more registered products among a plurality of items of product information is present, the candidate answer being a candidate for an answer to the question about the product asked by the questioning user; obtain, for each of the one or more registered products, log information including (i) error information on the registered product and (ii) a usage history of the registered product; the error information being obtained by communicating with the registered product, the registered product transmitting, on a regular basis or at a timing when a state of the registered product changes, state information that indicates whether an error is occurring in the registered product; detect, based on the state information received from the registered product that an error is occurring in at least one registered product among the one or more registered products; calculate a score for each of the one or more registered products by applying predetermined weighting based on the log information, wherein, in response to the detecting, a higher weighting is applied for the at least one registered product such that the score of the at least one registered product is increased; control a display order or a display position for a list of the one or more candidate answers regarding the one or more registered products, and cause a candidate answer regarding a registered product whose score is higher to be displayed at a higher position in the list, the list being displayed; further generate, in response to the detecting, for displaying as a push notification, (i) the one or more candidate answers regarding the at least one registered product, and (ii) indicating that the error is occurring; and present the candidate answer generated by transmitting.
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (including commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II))), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as at least one processor, a storage, an answering system, a display device, an Internet of Things (IoT) device, a signal, a graphic element), the claims are directed to providing answer to user question. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, analyzing it, and providing answer. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – at least one processor, a storage, an answering system, a display device. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. a) The additional elements merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” to; provide answer to user question based on state information. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims are not significantly more because they are part of the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to processor, a storage, an answering system, a display device, an Internet of Things (IoT) device, a signal, a graphic element, these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Paragraph [0025] details “Fig 1 processor 14, [0138]-[0139]CPU or processor, a general purpose circuit, [0145] When the user sees terminal device 2 and selects option 4E, processor 14 generates error-handling answer 30. [0056] A signal including the information that the user has entered using terminal device 2 is transmitted to answering system 100 via network N1. [0065] presenter 15 presents one or more options 4 to the questioning user by transmitting a signal including one or more options 4 to terminal device 2”. These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above, receiving, analyzing, transmitting and displaying data, which fall under well-understood, routine and conventional functions of generic computers. Furthermore, the use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as a well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); Also see MPEP 2106.05(d) discussing elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional activities in particular fields. Lastly, the additional elements provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and are well-understood, routine and conventional limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the function of any computer itself, applying the exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment such as computing. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 3-11, 16-19, 21 add additional limitations, for example but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as representative independent claims.
Claims 3-5, 7 recites limitations that further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim including wherein the processor assigns a degree of priority to the registered product information, and the presenter presents the candidate answer as an option, based on the degree of priority assigned by the processor; wherein the processor assigns the degree of priority, based on a date of purchase of a registered product indicated in the registered product information; wherein the processor assigns the degree of priority, based on a date of registration indicated in the registered product information. wherein the processor assigns the degree of priority, based on a usage history of a registered product indicated in the registered product information. These limitations recites assigning priority based on various factors at high level of generality and further narrow the abstract idea. The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites limitations that further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim including wherein the first obtainer further obtains error information on a registered product indicated in the registered product information, and the processor increases the degree of priority of the registered product information that corresponds to the error information. Claims 8-9 recites the first obtainer further obtains a history of questions asked by a registered user about a non-registered product that is not registered, and the processor provisionally registers the non-registered product as a registered product, based on the history obtained by the first obtainer; wherein the processor generates guidance information for guiding the questioning user to a process for registration of the non-registered product, and the presenter further presents, as an option, the guidance information generated by the processor. These limitation merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 10-11 recites limitations that further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim including wherein the presenter does not present the candidate answer regarding the registered product information when an answer regarding the registered product information is not present; wherein the processor generates reason information indicating a reason for generating the candidate answer, and the presenter presents the reason information. These limitation merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 16-19, 21 recites limitations that further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim including the home appliance includes one of a vacuum cleaner, a washing machine, a refrigerator, an air cleaner, a toilet bowl, or an air conditioner. the storage stores the registered user information and the registered product information in association with each other using the second identifier. wherein the at least one processor searches for the registered user information based on the third identifier included in the questioning user information, and extracts the one or more items of registered product information associated with the registered user information to determine the one or more items of registered product information to be referred to. wherein the storage holds association information in which the registered product information and the second identifier are associated with each other, and the at least one processor identifies the registered product information based on the association information; wherein the storage further stores a knowledge base that includes a plurality of knowledge base entries each of which is associated with at least one attribute among following attributes: a product number, a serial number, a product individual identifier (ID), a product category ID, an error ID, and a date and time of occurrence of error, and a knowledge base entry that matches at least one attribute among following attributes: the product number, the serial number, the product individual ID, the product category ID, the error ID, and the date and time of occurrence of error that are included in the one or more items of registered product information, is identified from the knowledge base, and the one or more candidate answers regarding the one or more registered products are generated based on answer information included in the knowledge base entry identified. These limitation merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
These limitations merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The dependent claims do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computing system is merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, the claims do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejection, applicant states on page 14 that real time detection of error in a registered product, calculation of a score using log information and control of a display order of candidate answers based on score provides a practical technological solution to a problem specific to an IoT based product support system.
Examiner has considered all arguments and respectfully disagrees. Claims do not provide any details on how the real time detection is performed, further the calculating of score and using the score to rank/display answers in order does not provide technical improvement. Displaying solution or information from highest score to lowest is not improvement to a user interface. While the Applicant points to [0128]-[0131] of specification for alleged improvements to computer efficiency, the specification merely recites the alleged improvements ([0131] reduction of time and effort that the user spend to obtain answer), with no further detail to how the claim set achieves such an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a) recites “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Examiner notes neither specification nor claims recite how the improvement/processor efficiency is achieved. The instant claims are directed to an abstract idea, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the instant claims are only to generic computing components that implement the abstract idea on a computing environment. As such, it can be interpreted that the instant claims only make the abstract idea more efficient, and there are not actual changes/improvements to any computing components.
35U.SC 103 rejection is withdrawn in view of claim amendments (noted in Final OA).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Laird McConnel (US 2013/0066693) discloses receives an input query 104 that defines a problem from a user 106. The user interface component provides the input query 104 to search and ranking system 108 that searches data store 110 based on the input query 104 and provides search results 112 in the form of possible solutions to the problem posed by the input query 104.
Bishop (US12026554 B2) (FD07-27-21) discloses response based on application priority and solution includes explanation.
Anand (US 9009189) discloses estimate a priority of problems for an authoring solution (which then come to be answered) (121), multiple criteria can come into play such as: frequency of occurrence; quality of existing solutions (if any solutions exist); quality of the best solution (if any solutions exist); diversity of problems presented; average time to resolve; estimated savings; and average priority.
Yanacek (US9258197) teaches assigns a degree of priority to the registered product information (Col 6 lines 37-40 a request 127 for information regarding one item may be prioritized relative to a request 127 for information regarding another item. For example, a request 127 with a certain type of HTTP header may be given a greater or lesser priority. Col 1 lines 57-60 prioritizing service requests so that at least high priority requests are processed, while low priority requests may be dropped or otherwise receive degraded performance)
Knas (US 11,115,499B1) discloses certain information is associated with the service requests 110 which may include one or more of: the personal identity of the user of the client device, the company or business organization with which the client device is associated, the particular division or unit of the company or business organization with which the client device is associated, the client device user's assessment of the level of importance of the service request ring submitted, at least one piece of client organization-specific business process data (Col 4 lines 27-32)
Tuchman (US 2012/0265697A1) discloses product registration and registration module 201 accesses product information store 216 to obtain detailed product information and accesses client database 213 to obtain client information of a client from which the product was purchased based on the machine-readable code. Product information may be acquired via a combination of several methods, such as, for example, 1) licensed from a product data provider ([0098]), [0163] customer support based on customer value, type of service
Podgorny (US 2019/0303802A1) discloses question prioritization based on business value and community value (Fig 3 #304)
Shroff (US 8,327,276 B2) discloses a community forum is arranged as a technical support forum to provide support for technical problems associated with a product and/or service. A community driven prioritization of customer issues, an agree portion 316 associated with one or more posting 218 may be provided in a user interface 114 configured for interactions with a community forum. Fig 5 shows associations of users with postings in a community forum are utilized to assign priority to the postings. Based on the priority, the highest priority issues may be identified and/or surfaced to technical support staff, service managers, or designated super users or experts.
Tumulty et al. (US 2002/0143661) discloses a method for prioritizing a customer inquiry is provided. The method receives an inquiry from a customer. The method further prompts the customer to provide at least one of an identification number or customer information in response to a predetermined set of queries.
Iyer et al. (US10,467,630B2) discloses the message classification system 110 may identify social media messages associated with the entity that are posted by users via the social media system 108. In particular, the message classification system 110 may identify social media messages posted by users that are associated with products and services provided by the entity. For example, the message classification system 110 may detect social media messages on the social media system 108 that mention one of the entity's products or a social media message or asks the entity a question regarding a service/product provided by the entity. For example, if the user previously purchased products from the entity, but is showing doubt about current or future products (e.g., an increase in negative comments), the user classifier 214 may classify the user as an at-risk user. The user classifier 214 may increase the response priority of an at-risk user. For example, the user classifier can increase the priority of an at-risk user above that a spammer or even an influencer.
Tzur (US 2021/0097551) discloses customer service ticket prioritization system 100, according to an embodiment of the disclosure. As shown in FIG. 1, one or more customer service tickets 110 are applied to a feature extraction module 120 that extracts a number of extracted features 130. In some embodiments, the feature extraction module 120 extracts dynamic information regarding activities performed to address the customer service ticket and textual information describing at least a portion of the customer service ticket, as discussed further below in conjunction with FIG. 2. In addition, the exemplary feature extraction module 120 optionally determines a frequency of activities performed to address the customer service ticket, product information, customer information and install base information.
JP2011257968 discloses evaluating the priority of businesses based on the information on a troubled business to thereby reduce the burden on a person in charge by efficiently allotting businesses and to enable swift action to businesses with a higher priority and proper evaluation of SLA.
NPL, Tsai,” Prioritizing service requests on cloud with Multi-tenancy” discloses request prioritization presents a challenge in this architecture. Tenant may have individual (local) prioritization requirements, and these requirements can be different for different tenants. The shared application must use a global priority scheme for requests from all the tenants. This paper proposes an effective model to prioritize service requests from multiple tenants while preserving local priorities from individual tenant requests
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGEETA BAHL whose telephone number is (571)270-7779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 4PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights