DETAILED ACTION
Claim 11 has been added.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10 and 11 are currently pending.
Claims 5 and 10 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 5 and 6 of the response in essence that: Applicant submits this filtering process eliminates irrelevant records that may be mixed into accumulated historical performance data, thereby preventing subsequent priority calculations from being influenced by erroneous historical records. Accordingly, this processing is not a mere presentation of information.
Compiling a list of parts likely to cause an error and deleting those parts that are not used by the device model are limitations directed to the abstract idea of organizing a list of parts likely to clear an error based on history and market performance. Furthermore, the claims do not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind. The limitations are mental processes that can be performed by a human using pen and paper.
The Applicant argues on page 6 of the response in essence that: Further, the feature to provide, for each of a replacement operation, a cleaning operation and an adjustment operation, the identified part information based on order of the calculated priorities describes provisions of information which involves control based on the type of repair or recovery operation. Provision in priority order separately for replacement, cleaning, and adjustment operations is required, and therefore is not limited to a simple listing of information.
Providing the identified part based on order of the calculated priorities is simply organizing a list of parts likely to clear an error based on history and market performance. That a replacement operation, a cleaning operation and an adjustment operation are considered for organizing the list does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Applicant argues on page 7 of the response in essence that: While Li uses historical records for learning and performs probability estimation, Li does not at all contemplate a filtering process like the "correct answer master" of the present application, which excludes inappropriate records based on combinations of parts that may cause an error. Paragraph [0026] of merely exemplifies historical records and cannot be regarded as a disclosure of any filtering process.
Li discloses generating an initial parts provisioning plan and removing parts based on historical parts provisioning and usage records (paragraph 30). Generating a listing of parts and removing parts is a filtering process.
The Applicant argues on page 7 of the response in essence that: Neither Li nor Saneyoshi discloses a structure in which part information is provided in priority order for each type of operation
Li discloses providing part information in priority order for replacement operations (paragraph 59). Saneyoshi discloses providing part information for a cleaning operation and an adjustment operation (paragraph 98). In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Provision in priority order separately for replacement, cleaning, and adjustment operations) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A listing of corrective actions that include replacement, cleaning and adjustment reads on the recited claim limitation.
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 1-3, 6-8 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the number" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 1-3, 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter 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. The flow chart in MPEP 2106, Subject Matter Eligibility Test For Products and Processes, will be referenced to establish that the subject matter is ineligible.
Step 1: claim 1 recites a system and claim 6 recites a method. Claims 1 and 6 fall under one of the four recognized statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One: However, claims 1 and 6 are further directed to the abstract idea of organizing a list of parts likely to clear an error based on history and market performance. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Furthermore, the claims do not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind. The limitations are mental processes that can be performed by a human using pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two: Additional elements include a memory, a processor and a web browser. The involvement of a generic computer components does not provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitations to hardware involve no more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B: The claims do not provide an inventive concept as they do not provide an improvement to any type of particular machine. Automating the listing of parts likely to clear an error does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology. The claims do not improve the computer system that is implementing the abstract idea. Merely automating or otherwise making efficient traditional methods do not constitute an inventive concept. Therefore claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11 are non-statutory.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US Publication 2017/0316339 (hereafter “Li”) and Saneyoshi et al. US Publication 2020/0058081 (hereafter “Saneyoshi”).
Referring to claims 1 and 6, Li discloses a management system comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions, and
one or more processors which, when executing the instructions, cause the management system to:
identify, based on error information about an error occurring in an image processing apparatus, part information about one or more parts to be addressed to clear the error occurring in the image processing apparatus (paragraph 39, At 226, parts provision module 120 uses the trained decision model 122 to predict a parts usage probability pi of each part Pi for the new hardware maintenance ticket 214. The prediction may be based on a similarity of the symptoms vector of the new hardware maintenance ticket to the symptoms vectors in one or more of the sample sets that have been used to train decision model 122 for each part Pi);
acquire a market performance that is information for managing the number of respective operations previously performed to clear an error in association with an operation target part and the error (paragraph 26, At 206, historical parts provisioning and usage records 400 are sent to decision model training module 136 from data layer 140. Historical parts provisioning and usage records 400 may include ticket identifiers 402, part identifiers 404, and provisioning data 406, as illustrated, for example, in FIG. 4);
perform a filter process on the market performance based on a correct answer master for specifying a combination of an error and a part having a possibility of causing the error (paragraph 26, At 206, historical parts provisioning and usage records 400 are sent to decision model training module 136 from data layer 140. Historical parts provisioning and usage records 400 may include ticket identifiers 402, part identifiers 404, and provisioning data 406, as illustrated, for example, in FIG. 4), wherein the filter process deletes, from the market performance, one or more operation records associated with a part that is not included in the correct answer master for a combination of the model information and the error (paragraph 30, At 502, decision model training module 136 determines whether a part Pi is provisioned and used by a ticket Tj based on the received historical parts provisioning and usage records 400);
calculate priorities for the respective one or more parts included in the identified part information based on the market performance (paragraph 59, With reference now to FIG. 9, user interface 900 includes hardware maintenance ticket 902, in this example, the ticket for “A17ZHR0”, and a parts provision plan 904 for hardware maintenance ticket 902. Parts provisioning plan 904 includes a listing of parts IDs 906 that are included in the plan, the probability 908 of usage for each listed part as generated by decision model 122, the over-provisioning costs 910 for each listed part, the under-provisioning cost 912 for each part, user activatable elements 914 for removing parts from the plan, a user activatable element 916 for adding a new parts to the plan, an estimated over-provision cost 918 for the entire parts provision plan 904, and an estimated under-provision cost 920 for the entire parts provision plan 904); and
provide, for each a replacement operation, the identified part information based on order of the calculated priorities (paragraph 59, With reference now to FIG. 9, user interface 900 includes hardware maintenance ticket 902, in this example, the ticket for “A17ZHR0”, and a parts provision plan 904 for hardware maintenance ticket 902. Parts provisioning plan 904 includes a listing of parts IDs 906 that are included in the plan, the probability 908 of usage for each listed part as generated by decision model 122, the over-provisioning costs 910 for each listed part, the under-provisioning cost 912 for each part, user activatable elements 914 for removing parts from the plan, a user activatable element 916 for adding a new parts to the plan, an estimated over-provision cost 918 for the entire parts provision plan 904, and an estimated under-provision cost 920 for the entire parts provision plan 904).
Li does not disclose wherein the operations to clear an error include cleaning and adjustment.
Saneyoshi discloses providing for each a replacement operation, a cleaning operation and an adjustment operation, the identified part information based on the calculated priorities (paragraph 98, in the example of FIG. 2, information identifying a facility (facility name and model number), failure information (failure (defect) status, failure location, failure date (year, month, and day)), and information such as a product name manufactured by the facility in question, repair method, cost, and repair time (in hours) may be stored).
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include cleaning and adjustment in operations to clear an error. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce costs by not replacing parts that can be fixed through cleaning or adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Saneyoshi with Li to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1 and 6.
Referring to claims 2 and 7, Li discloses wherein the part information about the one or more parts is provided in order of priority corresponding to a percentage based on the market performance (paragraph 59, With reference now to FIG. 9, user interface 900 includes hardware maintenance ticket 902, in this example, the ticket for “A17ZHR0”, and a parts provision plan 904 for hardware maintenance ticket 902. Parts provisioning plan 904 includes a listing of parts IDs 906 that are included in the plan, the probability 908 of usage for each listed part as generated by decision model 122, the over-provisioning costs 910 for each listed part, the under-provisioning cost 912 for each part, user activatable elements 914 for removing parts from the plan, a user activatable element 916 for adding a new parts to the plan, an estimated over-provision cost 918 for the entire parts provision plan 904, and an estimated under-provision cost 920 for the entire parts provision plan 904).
Referring to claim 11, Saneyoshi discloses wherein, in addition to providing the identified part information, parameter information is further provided for each of the replacement operation, the cleaning operation and the adjustment operation (paragraph 98, in the example of FIG. 2, information identifying a facility (facility name and model number), failure information (failure (defect) status, failure location, failure date (year, month, and day)), and information such as a product name manufactured by the facility in question, repair method, cost, and repair time (in hours) may be stored).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US Publication 2017/0316339 and Saneyoshi et al. US Publication 2020/0058081 as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of well known prior art.
Referring to claims 3 and 8, Li discloses wherein the part information is provided as a response to a request to acquire a repair procedure for an error designated (paragraph 19, User interface 110 may provide a user, e.g., a service agent or engineer, with access to provisioning system 100, for example, via a wired or wireless network, the internet, or other similar communications systems).
While Li discloses using the internet to submit a repair request, Li does not disclose expressly that the repair request is designated by a web browser.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known and obvious to provide a user interface with a web browser (See MPEP 2144.03). The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize existing software to incorporate a user interface rather than supplying a standalone program. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine well known prior art with Li to obtain the invention as specified in claims 3 and 8.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Benny Q Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682