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 CORRESPONDENCE
Priority
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, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as follows:
In regards to claims 27, 29, 36, 38, the Examiner asserts that the following is not found in parent applications 61/470,073; 13/435,474; 17/303,446:
detecting no incompatibility in the second degradation information;
employing the predictive model or a second predictive model to determine a second upgrade solution for the first mobile device
(emphasis added)
The Examiner in unable to find support in the specifications for a scenario where there no incompatibility was detected, then employing the predictive model or a second predictive model to determine a second upgrade solution for the first mobile device, that there are two separate models that can be employed, or that the second upgrade solution is for the first mobile device.
Accordingly, the effective filing date of the instant application is its filing date of January 17, 2024.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 – 26, 28 – 35, 37, 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,905,197 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
U.S. Patent No. 11,905,197 B2: Claim 1
Instant Application: Claims 21 – 23, 25 – 29
A method comprising
(Claim 21) A method comprising;
generating a transmittable deliverable component comprising a targeted fulfillment engine;
(Claim 25) generating a transmittable deliverable component comprising a targeted fulfillment engine;
causing, via computer executable download instructions, a first plurality of mobile devices to each download a respective copy of the transmittable deliverable component comprising the targeted fulfillment engine to instantiate the targeted fulfillment engine locally on each respective mobile device of the first plurality of mobile devices, wherein each targeted fulfillment engine comprises a predictive model;
(Claim 25) causing, via computer executable download instructions, the first mobile device to download a copy of the transmittable deliverable component comprising the targeted fulfillment engine to instantiate the targeted fulfillment engine locally on the first mobile device, wherein the targeted fulfillment engine comprises the predictive model;
generating, via each respective mobile device of the first plurality of mobile devices, usage pattern data associated with the respective mobile devices of the first plurality of mobile devices including first usage pattern data for a first mobile device of the first plurality of mobile devices and second usage pattern data for a second mobile device of the first plurality of mobile devices, wherein the usage pattern data comprises user activity data captured on each respective mobile device of the first plurality of mobile devices;
(Claim 26) generating, via each respective mobile device of a plurality of other mobile devices, usage pattern data associated with the respective other mobile devices of the plurality of other mobile devices to define the known usage patterns, wherein the usage pattern data comprises user activity data captured on each respective other mobile device of the plurality of other mobile devices
automatically inputting, via the transmittable deliverable component, each of the usage pattern data for each respective mobile device into the predictive model of the targeted fulfillment engine instantiated locally on the respective mobile devices of the first plurality of mobile devices;
(Claim 25) wherein the predictive model is run locally on the first mobile device
gathering second usage pattern data associated with a second plurality of mobile devices, the second usage pattern data defining known usage patterns;
(Claim 27) comparing second usage pattern data for a second mobile device with the known usage patterns to determine a second degradation information associated with the second mobile device;
for each respective mobile device of the first plurality of mobile devices, generating a unique output of the predictive model associated with the usage pattern data for each respective mobile device by comparing the usage pattern data for each respective mobile device with the second usage pattern data defining the known usage patterns to determine a degradation information associated with the respective mobile device including a first degradation information associated with the first mobile device and a second degradation information associated with the second mobile device, wherein at least a portion of the unique outputs are generated locally without network access;
(Claim 21) employing a predictive model to determine an upgrade resolution for the first mobile device, wherein the upgrade resolution is configured to resolve the incompatibility;
(Claim 27) employing the predictive model or a second predictive model to determine a second upgrade resolution for the first mobile device;
(Claim 21) comparing first usage pattern data for a first mobile device with known usage patterns to determine a first degradation information associated with the first mobile device;
(Claim 27) comparing second usage pattern data for a second mobile device with the known usage patterns to determine a second degradation information associated with the second mobile device;
receiving claim information associated with a subscriber associated with the first mobile device, the claim information indicative of a claim associated with a wireless device protection program;
(Claim 23) the method of Claim 21, further comprising:
receiving claim information associated with the first user associated with the first mobile device;
detecting a mechanical breakdown or accidental damage of the first mobile device of the first plurality of mobile devices;
(Claim 22) the method of Claim 21, further comprising:
detecting a mechanical breakdown or accidental damage of the first mobile device,
employing, via processing circuitry, the predictive model to determine a plurality of options for fulfillment of the claim, the predictive model defining a weighted value for each option, wherein the plurality of options comprises an upgrade resolution;
(Claim 21) employing a predictive model to determine an upgrade resolution for the first mobile device, wherein the upgrade resolution is configured to resolve the incompatibility
(Claim 23) employing the predictive model to determine a plurality of options for fulfillment of a claim associated with the claim information, the predictive model defining a weighted value for each option, wherein the plurality of options comprises the upgrade resolution
(Claim 29) employing the predictive model or a second predictive model to determine a plurality of options for fulfillment of a claim associated with the second claim information, the predictive model or the second predictive model defining a weighted value for each option;
programmatically generating the upgrade resolution for resolving the mechanical breakdown or accidental damage, wherein programmatically generating the upgrade resolution comprises detecting an incompatibility in the first degradation information comprising an incompatibility between the first usage pattern data and a life status of the first mobile device based on a device model of the first mobile device;
(Claim 22) wherein determining the upgrade resolution comprises programmatically generating the upgrade resolution for resolving the mechanical breakdown or accidental damage
(Claim 21) detecting an incompatibility in the first degradation information comprising an incompatibility between the first usage pattern data and a life status of the first mobile device based on a device model of the first mobile device
presenting, to a first user of the first mobile device, the upgrade resolution based on the incompatibility associated with the first mobile device;
(Claim 21) presenting, to a first user of the first mobile device, the upgrade resolution based on the incompatibility associated with the first mobile device;
receiving a selection, via an interface, of the upgrade resolution;
(Claim 21) receiving a selection, via an interface, of the upgrade resolution;
receiving second claim information associated with a second subscriber associated with the second mobile device of the first plurality of mobile devices;
(Claim 29) the method of Claim 21, further comprising:
receiving second claim information associated with a second user associated with a second mobile device;
detecting a second mechanical breakdown or second accidental damage of the second mobile device of the first plurality of mobile devices;
(Claim 28) the method of Claim 21, further comprising:
detecting a mechanical breakdown or accidental damage of the second mobile device associated with a second user;
programmatically generating a second resolution for resolving the second mechanical breakdown or second accidental damage, wherein the second resolution comprises instructions to issue a first refurbished mobile device to the second subscriber based on a compatibility of the second usage pattern data and a life status of the first refurbished mobile device;
(Claim 28) programmatically generating a second resolution for resolving the mechanical breakdown or accidental damage, wherein the second resolution comprises instructions to issue a refurbished mobile device to the second user;
presenting, to a second user of the second mobile device, the second resolution associated with the second mobile device and the first refurbished mobile device;
(Claim 28) presenting, to a second user of the second mobile device, the second resolution associated with the second mobile device and the refurbished mobile device;
(Claim 27) presenting, to a second user of the second mobile device, the second upgrade resolution;
receiving a second selection, via a second interface, of the second resolution;
(Claim 28) receiving a second selection, via a second interface, of the second resolution;
(Claim 27) receiving a second selection, via a second interface, of the second upgrade resolution;
(Claim 29) employing the predictive model or a second predictive model to determine a plurality of options for fulfillment of a claim associated with the second claim information, the predictive model or the second predictive model defining a weighted value for each option;
fulfill the upgrade resolution for the first user based on the selection; and
(Claim 21) fulfill the upgrade resolution for the first user based on the selection
fulfill the second resolution for the second user based on the second selection.
(Claim 28) fulfill the second resolution for the second user based on the second selection
(Claim 27) fulfill the second upgrade resolution for the second user based on the second selection
U.S. Patent No. 11,905,197 B2: Claim 2
Instant Application: Claim 24
The method of Claim 1, further comprising:
the method of Claim 23, further comprising:
determining, based at least in part on the weighted value of each of the plurality of options, a best option for fulfillment of the claim; and
determining, based at least in part on the weighted value of each of the plurality of options, a best option for fulfillment of the claim;
automatically selecting the best option to use for fulfillment of the claim, wherein the best option comprises the upgrade resolution.
automatically selecting the best option to use for fulfillment of the claim, wherein the best option comprises the upgrade resolution
The Examiner asserts that Claims 30 – 35, 37, 38 follow the same pattern provided above for claims 3, 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,905,197 B2.
Claims 27, 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,905,197 B2 in view of Tupman et al. (US PGPub 20080204218 A1).
U.S. Patent No. 11,905,197 B2: Claim 1
Instant Application: Claim 27
A method comprising
gathering second usage pattern data associated with a second plurality of mobile devices, the second usage pattern data defining known usage patterns;
(Claim 27) comparing second usage pattern data for a second mobile device with the known usage patterns to determine a second degradation information associated with the second mobile device;
(Claim 27) detecting no incompatibility in the second degradation information
for each respective mobile device of the first plurality of mobile devices, generating a unique output of the predictive model associated with the usage pattern data for each respective mobile device by comparing the usage pattern data for each respective mobile device with the second usage pattern data defining the known usage patterns to determine a degradation information associated with the respective mobile device including a first degradation information associated with the first mobile device and a second degradation information associated with the second mobile device, wherein at least a portion of the unique outputs are generated locally without network access;
(Claim 27) employing the predictive model or a second predictive model to determine a second upgrade resolution for the first mobile device;
(Claim 27) comparing second usage pattern data for a second mobile device with the known usage patterns to determine a second degradation information associated with the second mobile device;
presenting, to a second user of the second mobile device, the second resolution associated with the second mobile device and the first refurbished mobile device;
(Claim 27) presenting, to a second user of the second mobile device, the second upgrade resolution;
receiving a second selection, via a second interface, of the second resolution;
(Claim 27) receiving a second selection, via a second interface, of the second upgrade resolution;
fulfill the second resolution for the second user based on the second selection
(Claim 27) fulfill the second upgrade resolution for the second user based on the second selection
The Examiner asserts that claim 36 follows the same pattern provided above for claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,905,197 B2.
In regards to claims 27, 36, with regards to “no incompatibility”, in light of the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b), U.S. Patent No. 11,905,197 B2 discloses a system and method for replacing a user’s device based on collected information concerning the user’s current device and, based on an analysis of the collected information, providing a replacement solution. Despite this, U.S. Patent No. 11,905,197 B2 fails to disclose all possible reasons of why a user would want to replace their device, e.g., replacing a device when there are no incompatibility issues.
Tupman teaches that the system detects a mechanical breakdown or accidental damage of the device to determine a solution, e.g., device replacement or repair. In such events, the system determines that the device is malfunctioning and, in response, the solution recommended to the user is to have their device repaired or replaced not because the device is unable to perform at a level that the user wants to device to operate at, e.g., capturing high quality images when the device incompatible to perform such functions, but because the device is broken or damaged. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and been motivated to analyze all reasons of why a device should be upgraded, replaced, or repaired as this would increase customer satisfaction by providing an operational device, result in a cost savings for a customer by simply having their device repaired rather than completely replaced, and/or provide important insight about the device to allow a manufacturer to address identified issues in future devices if any are found.
(For support see: ¶ 21, 22, 23, 35, 36, 37)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the device usage pattern monitoring and device replacement system and method of U.S. Patent No. 11,905,197 B2to include other types of reasons of why a device resolution should be provided to a user, as taught by Tupman, this provides an opportunity to identify the specific needs and/or situation that the user is facing with their device and provide the best solution of the user, thereby increase customer satisfaction by providing an operational device, result in a cost savings for a customer by simply having their device repaired rather than completely replaced, and/or provide important insight about the device to allow a manufacturer to address identified issues in future devices if any are found.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 27, 37 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.
In regards to claims 27, 37, the Examiner does not understand why the analysis of the second mobile device are utilized to determine an upgrade resolution for a first mobile device. The claimed invention and specification do not outline the relationship between the two devices and upon review of the entire claim set, the first and second users, their respective devices, and respective solutions are directed towards their own respective scenarios and that one is not related to the other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 27, 29, 36, 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claims 27, 29, 36, 38, the Examiner asserts that the following is new matter:
detecting no incompatibility in the second degradation information;
employing the predictive model or a second predictive model to determine a second upgrade solution for the first mobile device
(emphasis added)
The Examiner in unable to find support in the specification for a scenario where there no incompatibility was detected, then employing the predictive model or a second predictive model to determine a second upgrade solution for the first mobile device, that there are two separate models that can be employed, or that the second upgrade solution is for the first mobile device.
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 21 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
comparing first usage pattern data for a first mobile device with known usage patterns to determine first degradation information associated with the first mobile device;
detecting an incompatibility in the first degradation information comprising an incompatibility between the first usage pattern data and a life status of the first mobile device based on a device model of the first mobile device;
employing a predictive model to determine an upgrade resolution for the first mobile device, wherein the upgrade resolution is configured to resolve the incompatibility;
presenting, to a first user of the first mobile device, the upgrade resolution based on the incompatibility associated with the first mobile device;
receiving a selection, via an interface, of the upgrade resolution; and
fulfill the upgrade resolution for the first user based on the selection
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of providing a commercial transaction opportunity, in this case, presenting product upgrade recommendations to a user, which corresponds to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a humans interacting with one another in a commercial interaction and/or transaction, e.g., having a seller ask the potential customer about their device usage habits, compare the customer’s habits to other known habits, identifying and presenting device upgrade options that would fulfill the users habits, and fulfilling the transaction.
The limitations of:
comparing first usage pattern data for a first mobile device with known usage patterns to determine first degradation information associated with the first mobile device;
detecting an incompatibility in the first degradation information comprising an incompatibility between the first usage pattern data and a life status of the first mobile device based on a device model of the first mobile device;
employing a predictive model to determine an upgrade resolution for the first mobile device, wherein the upgrade resolution is configured to resolve the incompatibility;
presenting, to a first user of the first mobile device, the upgrade resolution based on the incompatibility associated with the first mobile device;
receiving a selection, via an interface, of the upgrade resolution; and
fulfill the upgrade resolution for the first user based on the selection
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium. That is, other than reciting a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium in the context of this claim encompasses a vendor recommending device upgrade options to a potential customer based on information collected about the customer’s usage habits and capabilities of other devices and known usage habits of other customers. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium to collect, communicate, and present (display) information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper, i.e. comparing usage habits and devices and, based on a rule(s) (in this case, satisfying a user’s usage habits), provide options (in this case, device upgrade options). The generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of collecting, communicating, and presenting (displaying) information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper; "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 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 element of using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium to perform the steps of:
comparing first usage pattern data for a first mobile device with known usage patterns to determine first degradation information associated with the first mobile device;
detecting an incompatibility in the first degradation information comprising an incompatibility between the first usage pattern data and a life status of the first mobile device based on a device model of the first mobile device;
employing a predictive model to determine an upgrade resolution for the first mobile device, wherein the upgrade resolution is configured to resolve the incompatibility;
presenting, to a first user of the first mobile device, the upgrade resolution based on the incompatibility associated with the first mobile device;
receiving a selection, via an interface, of the upgrade resolution; and
fulfill the upgrade resolution for the first user based on the selection
amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally:
Claim 22 is directed towards descriptive subject matter, in this case, describing the reason for upgrading the user’s device.
Claims 23, 24 are directed towards a commercial transaction, in this case, a warranty claim and describing that factors are weighed to determine the options available under the warranty.
Claim 25 is directed to reciting generic technology at high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, in this case, downloading and installing a computer executable instruction to perform the operations collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule(s), identify options.
Claim 26 is directed towards the collection and analysis of information to identify patterns in the collected information and describing the collected information.
Claim 27 is similar to claim 21 and repeating claim 21, but for another user, their respective device, and a different scenario that the upgrade falls under.
Claim 28 is similar to and repeating what has been discussed above, but for another user, their respective device, a different scenario of why the upgrade is being recommended, and a different upgrade option.
Claim 29 is similar to claim 23 and repeating claim 23, but for another user, their respective device, and a different scenario that the upgrade falls under, as well as claim 21 with respect to receiving a user selection.
The remaining claims are similar to what has been above.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for presenting upgrade options to a user. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21 – 27, 29 – 36, 38 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mckenna (US PGPub 20100287031 A1) in view of Tupman et al. (US PGPub 2008/0204218 A1).
In regards to claims 21, 30, 39, Mckenna discloses (Claim 21) a method comprising; (Claim 30) a system comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, configure the system to; (Claim 39) at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors:
comparing first usage pattern data for a first mobile device with known usage patterns to determine a [usage or device state] information associated with the first mobile device (¶ 19, 22, 28, 29, 30, 32 wherein the usage pattern for the mobile device is compared against know usage patterns to determine usage or device state information associated with the mobile device, wherein the usage or device state information is used to determine whether the device is meeting the needs of the user, whether the device provides an expected level of performance needed by the user, and/or whether the devices provides an expected level of performance relative to other devices’ known usage patterns);
detecting an incompatibility in the [usage or device state] information comprising an incompatibility between the first usage pattern data and a [state] of the first mobile device based on a device model of the first mobile device (¶ 26, 28, 29, 30, 32 wherein an incompatibility of the usage or device state information is detected, wherein the detection comprises an incompatibility between the usage pattern and life status of the mobile device based on a device model of the device, i.e. where the detected incompatibility includes information on whether the device is meeting the needs of the user, whether the device provides an expected level of performance needed by the user, and/or whether the devices provides an expected level of performance relative to other devices’ known usage patterns. As a non-limiting example, based on the user taking a lot of high-quality images, the system determines that this usage is incompatible to the performance that the device provides due to its age or incompatible hardware/software that is capable of achieving the desired usage needs of the user (i.e. older camera technology, less storage, and etc.) and, therefore, the system will recommend a replacement device capable of providing better images, more storage space, and/or a better battery to prevent inadvertent shutdowns);
employing a predictive model to determine an upgrade resolution for the first mobile device, wherein the upgrade resolution is configured to resolve the incompatibility (¶ 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 32 wherein the system predicts that the user is in need of an upgrade to resolve the incompatibility, e.g., a new device with a better camera to take the better pictures that the user wants, a “qwerty” keyboard to meet the typing needs of the user, more storage, a device with a better battery life in order to avoid inadvertent shutdowns, and etc.);
In regards to:
presenting, to a first user of the first mobile device, the upgrade resolution based on the incompatibility associated with the first mobile device;
receiving a selection, via an interface, of the upgrade resolution; and
fulfill the upgrade resolution for the first user based on the selection
(¶ 25, 44, 47, 65, 67 wherein the upgrade recommendations are presented to the user on their device so that the user can select and purchase the new device).
Mckenna discloses a system and method of collecting and analyzing the usage patterns of a user’s device to determine if device upgrade or replacement is needed due to the system determining that there is an incompatibility between the capabilities of the device, usage patterns of other devices, and usage patterns of the user. Although Mckenna discloses a wide range of incompatibility issues that leads the system to determining that a device upgrade/replacement is needed, e.g., insufficient battery life due to charging patterns to meet the needs of the user, Mckenna fails to disclose all possible incompatibility issues, such as, device degradation.
To be more specific, Mckenna fails to explicitly disclose:
comparing first usage pattern data for a first mobile device with known usage patterns to determine a first degradation information associated with the first mobile device;
detecting an incompatibility in the first degradation information comprising an incompatibility between the first usage pattern data and a life status of the first mobile device based on a device model of the first mobile device.
However, Tupman, which is also directed towards monitoring, collecting, and analyzing device usage to determine whether the performance of the device is meeting the needs of the user, further teaches that there are a wide range of issues that can be identified to determine whether a device should be replaced. Tupman teaches that usage patterns that indicate damage, improper usage, unintended performance, and the like can be determined by collecting and analyzing the usage information. Tupman teaches that this information and analysis can lead the system to determining that the device has degraded and, consequently, the life status of the device is affected, thereby determining that the device should be replaced. Tupman teaches, “By providing monitoring and recording capabilities, more efficient and accurate fault analysis can be provided that, in tum, can facilitate product design and may reduce cost of repair by more clearly delineating if any recorded event (usually user initiated) has voided a current product warranty.” Tupman further teaches, “…event data can be used to determine a likely cause of the device malfunction and/or device damage. … evaluate the current operational status of the device…,” and “…a warning notice can be timely issues notifying a user that an event (or events) has occurred that may result in damage to the device if corrective actions are not taken.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include other types of incompatibility issues as this allows for a full and in-depth analysis of the device to determine whether the user’s needs are being met and, if not, identify the root cause of the incompatibility issue and provide a recommendation to resolve the issue. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and motivated to include degradation that affects the life status of the device as Tupman teaches that this is a known and obvious type of issue that can affect the performance of the device and whether the device can meet the needs of the user, thereby providing an opportunity to prevent future issues by recommending a device that will and/or whether the device has been utilized in a manner intended by the manufacturer.
(For support see: ¶ 5, 21, 22, 23, 24, 35, 36, 37, 42)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the device usage pattern monitoring and device replacement system and method of Mckenna to include other types of incompatibility issues that can affect a device’s capability of performing at a level that can fulfill a user’s needs, such as, but not limited to, degradation that can affect the life status of the device, as taught by Tupman, this provides an opportunity to prevent future issues by recommending a device whose performance will fulfill expected needs, whether the device has been utilized in a manner intended by the manufacturer, and/or provide important insight about the device to allow a manufacturer to address identified issues in future devices.
In regards to claims 22, 31, 40, the combination of Mckenna and Tupman discloses the method of Claim 21 (the system of Claim 30; the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 19), further comprising:
detecting a mechanical breakdown or accidental damage of the first mobile device,
wherein determining the upgrade resolution comprises programmatically generating the upgrade resolution for resolving the mechanical breakdown or accidental damage
(Mckenna – 26, 28, 29, 30, 32 wherein an incompatibility of the usage or device state information is detected, wherein the detection comprises an incompatibility between the usage pattern and life status of the mobile device based on a device model of the device, i.e. where the detected incompatibility includes information on whether the device is meeting the needs of the user, whether the device provides an expected level of performance needed by the user, and/or whether the devices provides an expected level of performance relative to other devices’ known usage patterns. As a non-limiting example, based on the user taking a lot of high-quality images, the system determines that this usage is incompatible to the performance that the device provides due to its age or incompatible hardware/software that is capable of achieving the desired usage needs of the user (i.e. older camera technology, less storage, and etc.) and, therefore, the system will recommend a replacement device capable of providing better images, more storage space, and/or a better battery to prevent inadvertent shutdowns;
Mckenna – ¶ 25, 44, 47, 65, 67 wherein the upgrade recommendations are presented to the user on their device so that the user can select and purchase the new device
Tupman – ¶ 21, 22, 23, 35, 36, 37 wherein the system detects a mechanical breakdown or accidental damage of the device to determine a solution, e.g., device replacement or repair
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the device usage pattern monitoring and device replacement system and method of Mckenna to include other types of incompatibility issues that can affect a device’s capability of performing at a level that can fulfill a user’s needs, such as, but not limited to, degradation that can affect the life status of the device, as taught by Tupman, this provides an opportunity to prevent future issues by recommending a device whose performance will fulfill expected needs, whether the device has been utilized in a manner intended by the manufacturer, and/or provide important insight about the device to allow a manufacturer to address identified issues in future devices.).
In regards to claims 23, 32, the combination of Mckenna and Tupman discloses the method of Claim 21 (the system of Claim 30), further comprising:
receiving claim information associated with the first user associated with the first mobile device; and
employing the predictive model to determine a plurality of options for fulfillment of a claim associated with the claim information, the predictive model defining a weighted value for each option, wherein the plurality of options comprises the upgrade resolution
(Mckenna – ¶ 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 32 wherein the system predicts that the user is in need of an upgrade to resolve the incompatibility, e.g., a new device with a better camera to take the better pictures that the user wants, a “qwerty” keyboard to meet the typing needs of the user, more storage, a device with a better battery life in order to avoid inadvertent shutdowns, and etc.
Mckenna – ¶ 33, 36, 43, 67, 68 wherein various factors are weighted to determine the resolution and wherein the decision to replace may be based on the device’s warranty
Tupman – ¶ 5, 35, 37, 42 wherein the device’s warranty is evaluated to determine the replacement/repair option(s) available to the user, i.e. the user provides their device to be evaluated for possible replacement/repair (i.e. claim) and the decision is based on the warranty and particulars of the collected and analyzed usage pattern of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the device usage pattern monitoring and device replacement system and method of Mckenna to include other types of incompatibility issues and weighted factors that can affect a device’s capability of performing at a level that can fulfill a user’s needs, such as, but not limited to, degradation that can affect the life status of the device, and to evaluate a repair/replacement claim based on a corresponding warranty, as taught by Tupman, this provides an opportunity to prevent future issues by recommending a device whose performance will fulfill expected needs, whether the device has been utilized in a manner intended by the manufacturer, provide important insight about the device to allow a manufacturer to address identified issues in future devices, and/or whether the device should be replaced/repaired.).
In regards to claims 24, 33, the combination of Mckenna and Tupman discloses the method of Claim 23 (the system of Claim 32), further comprising:
determining, based at least in part on the weighted value of each of the plurality of options, a best option for fulfillment of the claim; and
automatically selecting the best option to use for fulfillment of the claim, wherein the best option comprises the upgrade resolution
(Mckenna – ¶ 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 32 wherein the system predicts that the user is in need of an upgrade to resolve the incompatibility, e.g., a new device with a better camera to take the better pictures that the user wants, a “qwerty” keyboard to meet the typing needs of the user, more storage, a device with a better battery life in order to avoid inadvertent shutdowns, and etc.
Mckenna – ¶ 33, 36, 43, 67, 68 wherein various factors are weighted to determine the resolution and wherein the decision to replace may be based on the device’s warranty
Tupman – ¶ 5, 35, 37, 42 wherein the device’s warranty is evaluated to determine the replacement/repair option(s) available to the user, i.e. the user provides their device to be evaluated for possible replacement/repair (i.e. claim) and the decision is based on the warranty and particulars of the collected and analyzed usage pattern of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the device usage pattern monitoring and device replacement system and method of Mckenna to include other types of incompatibility issues and weighted factors that can affect a device’s capability of performing at a level that can fulfill a user’s needs, such as, but not limited to, degradation that can affect the life status of the device, and to evaluate a repair/replacement claim based on a corresponding warranty, as taught by Tupman, this provides an opportunity to prevent future issues by recommending a device whose performance will fulfill expected needs, whether the device has been utilized in a manner intended by the manufacturer, provide important insight about the device to allow a manufacturer to address identified issues in future devices, and/or whether the device should be replaced/repaired.).
In regards to claims 25, 34, the combination of Mckenna and Tupman discloses the method of Claim 21 (the system of Claim 30), further comprising:
generating a transmittable deliverable component comprising a targeted fulfillment engine; and
causing, via computer executable download instructions, the first mobile device to download a copy of the transmittable deliverable component comprising the targeted fulfillment engine to instantiate the targeted fulfillment engine locally on the first mobile device, wherein the targeted fulfillment engine comprises the predictive model;
wherein the predictive model is run locally on the first mobile device
(Mckenna – ¶ 37, 54 wherein a program/application is downloaded onto the mobi