DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 01/23/2024.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement filed on 01/23/2024 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such generic placeholder claim limitations, and coupled functional language, are:
a) claim 1:
a1) A generic placeholder of “usage-time counting unit” for the following function of “cyclically execute a time counting event when a connected apparatus body is detected to be powered on, and stop execution of the time counting event when the connected apparatus body is detected to be powered off”. Further, the generic placeholder “usage-time counting unit” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the usage-time counting unit invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The claimed “usage-time counting unit” corresponds to Fig. 2 with no sufficient structure disclosed in this application. A review for the specification shows that the claimed subject matter does not have a corresponding structure described in the specification. The specification discloses that the usage-time counting unit is included in the server with no further description to clarify that disclosure. For prosecution purposes, under the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): The claimed subject matter will be interpreted as (computer system to collect information and analyze it). See the112 (a) and (b) rejection below.
a2) A generic placeholder of “managing unit” for the following function of “count in-and-out-of-storage of the apparatus body based on the data”. Further, the generic placeholder “managing unit” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the managing unit invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The claimed “managing unit” corresponds to Fig. 2 with no sufficient structure disclosed in this application. A review for the specification shows that the claimed subject matter does not have a corresponding structure described in the specification. The specification discloses that the managing unit is included in the server with no further description to clarify that disclosure. For prosecution purposes, under the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): The claimed subject matter will be interpreted as (computer system to collect information and analyze it). See the112 (a) and (b) rejection below.
b) claim 2:
A generic placeholder of “time counting event” for the following function of “turn on a first timer for timing; accrue an updated interval variable once on the usage-time variable, when the timing of the first timer is equal to the updated interval variable; and reset the first timer”. Further, the generic placeholder “time counting event” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the time counting event invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The claimed “time counting event” corresponds to Fig. 2 with no sufficient structure disclosed in this application. A review for the specification shows that the claimed subject matter does not have a corresponding structure described in the specification. The specification discloses that the time counting event is included in the server with no further description to clarify that disclosure. For prosecution purposes, under the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): The claimed subject matter will be interpreted as (computer system to collect information and analyze it). See the112 (a) and (b) rejection below.
c) claim 3:
A generic placeholder of “time counting event” for the following function of “turn on a second timer for timing; accrue timing of the second timer on the usage-time time variable when the connected apparatus body is detected to be powered off; and reset the second timer”. Further, the generic placeholder “time counting event” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the time counting event invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The claimed “time counting event” corresponds to Fig. 2 with no sufficient structure disclosed in this application. A review for the specification shows that the claimed subject matter does not have a corresponding structure described in the specification. The specification discloses that the time counting event is included in the server with no further description to clarify that disclosure. For prosecution purposes, under the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): The claimed subject matter will be interpreted as (computer system to collect information and analyze it). See the112 (a) and (b) rejection below.
d) claim 4:
A generic placeholder of “rental apparatus” for the following function of “write a status of the apparatus body into the wireless tag”. Further, the generic placeholder “rental apparatus” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the rental apparatus invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The claimed “rental apparatus” corresponds to Fig. 2 with no sufficient structure disclosed in this application. A review for the specification shows that the claimed subject matter does not have a corresponding structure described in the specification. The specification discloses that the rental apparatus is included in the server with no further description to clarify that disclosure. For prosecution purposes, under the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): The claimed subject matter will be interpreted as (computer system to collect information and analyze it). See the112 (a) and (b) rejection below.
e) claim 6:
A generic placeholder of “managing unit” for the following function of “record the status and the usage-time variable … variable at the time of out-of-storage of each of the apparatus bodies to obtain current usage time of the apparatus body”. Further, the generic placeholder “managing unit” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the managing unit invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The claimed “managing unit” corresponds to Fig. 2 with no sufficient structure disclosed in this application. A review for the specification shows that the claimed subject matter does not have a corresponding structure described in the specification. The specification discloses that the managing unit is included in the server with no further description to clarify that disclosure. For prosecution purposes, under the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): The claimed subject matter will be interpreted as (computer system to collect information and analyze it). See the112 (a) and (b) rejection below.
f) claim 7:
A generic placeholder of “managing unit” for the following function of “generate a maintenance or replacement prompt when the usage-time variable of the apparatus body is detected to reach a lifespan threshold”. Further, the generic placeholder “managing unit” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the managing unit invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The claimed “managing unit” corresponds to Fig. 2 with no sufficient structure disclosed in this application. A review for the specification shows that the claimed subject matter does not have a corresponding structure described in the specification. The specification discloses that the managing unit is included in the server with no further description to clarify that disclosure. For prosecution purposes, under the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): The claimed subject matter will be interpreted as (computer system to collect information and analyze it). See the112 (a) and (b) rejection below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
a) Claims 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “usage-time counting unit” and “managing unit” without having adequate support for corresponding structure(s) in the specification as these claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation above as set forth in this Office action). Thus, the claim 1 cannot rely on the specification to ascertain corresponding structure(s) that provide the underlying claimed functions of “usage-time counting unit” and “managing unit” As such, claim 1 recite functions that have no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending on the rejected claim 1.
b) Claim 2 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
the claim recites “time counting event,” without having adequate support for corresponding structure(s) in the specification as these claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation above as set forth in this Office action). Thus, the claim 2 cannot rely on the specification to ascertain corresponding structure(s) that provide the underlying claimed functions of “time counting event,” As such, claim 2 recite functions that have no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
c) Claim 3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
the claim recites “time counting event,” without having adequate support for corresponding structure(s) in the specification as these claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation above as set forth in this Office action). Thus, the claim 3 cannot rely on the specification to ascertain corresponding structure(s) that provide the underlying claimed functions of “time counting event,” As such, claim 3 recite functions that have no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
d) Claim 4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
the claim recites “rental apparatus” without having adequate support for corresponding structure(s) in the specification as these claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation above as set forth in this Office action). Thus, the claim 4 cannot rely on the specification to ascertain corresponding structure(s) that provide the underlying claimed functions of “rental apparatus” As such, claim 4 recite functions that have no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected for depending on the rejected claim 4.
e) Claim 6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
the claim recites “managing unit” without having adequate support for corresponding structure(s) in the specification as these claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation above as set forth in this Office action). Thus, the claim 6 cannot rely on the specification to ascertain corresponding structure(s) that provide the underlying claimed functions of “managing unit” As such, claim 6 recite functions that have no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
f) Claim 7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
the claim recites “managing unit” without having adequate support for corresponding structure(s) in the specification as these claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation above as set forth in this Office action). Thus, the claim 7cannot rely on the specification to ascertain corresponding structure(s) that provide the underlying claimed functions of “managing unit” As such, claim 7recite functions that have no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
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 1-10 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.
a) The independent claim 1 is indefinite, because each of the claim limitations of “the usage-time counting unit being configured to cyclically execute a time counting event when a connected apparatus body is detected to be powered on, and stop execution of the time counting event when the connected apparatus body is detected to be powered off” it is unclear what the corresponding structure(s) are for the claim limitations “usage-time counting unit” (see Claim Interpretation). A review for the specification shows that it fails to disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for forming the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the entire claimed function. That is, the Applicant fails to provide corresponding structure or acts that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine its structural or functional equivalence.
b) The independent claim 1 is indefinite, because each of the claim limitations of “the managing unit being configured to count in-and-out-of-storage of the apparatus body based on the data” it is unclear what the corresponding structure(s) are for the claim limitations “managing unit” (see Claim Interpretation). A review for the specification shows that it fails to disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for forming the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the entire claimed function. That is, the Applicant fails to provide corresponding structure or acts that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine its structural or functional equivalence.
Accordingly, because this term is not defined in Applicant’s Specification, the examiner does not understand the scope of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending on the rejected claim 1.
b) Claim 2 is indefinite, because each of the claim limitations of “the time counting event is specifically configured to: turn on a first timer for timing; accrue an updated interval variable once on the usage-time variable, when the timing of the first timer is equal to the updated interval variable; and reset the first timer” it is unclear what the corresponding structure(s) are for the claim limitations “time counting event” (see Claim Interpretation). A review for the specification shows that it fails to disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for forming the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the entire claimed function. That is, the Applicant fails to provide corresponding structure or acts that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine its structural or functional equivalence.
Accordingly, because this term is not defined in Applicant’s Specification, the examiner does not understand the scope of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
c) Claim 3 is indefinite, because each of the claim limitations of “the time counting event is specifically configured to: turn on a second timer for timing; accrue timing of the second timer on the usage-time time variable when the connected apparatus body is detected to be powered off; and reset the second timer” it is unclear what the corresponding structure(s) are for the claim limitations “time counting event” (see Claim Interpretation). A review for the specification shows that it fails to disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for forming the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the entire claimed function. That is, the Applicant fails to provide corresponding structure or acts that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine its structural or functional equivalence.
Accordingly, because this term is not defined in Applicant’s Specification, the examiner does not understand the scope of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
d) Claim 4 is indefinite, because each of the claim limitations of “the rental apparatus is further configured to write a status of the apparatus body into the wireless tag” it is unclear what the corresponding structure(s) are for the claim limitations “rental apparatus” (see Claim Interpretation). A review for the specification shows that it fails to disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for forming the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the entire claimed function. That is, the Applicant fails to provide corresponding structure or acts that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine its structural or functional equivalence.
Accordingly, because this term is not defined in Applicant’s Specification, the examiner does not understand the scope of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected for depending on the rejected claim 4.
e) Claim 6 is indefinite, because each of the claim limitations of “the managing unit is specifically configured to: record the status and the usage-time variable of each of the apparatus bodies uploaded by the wireless reader-writer and update the number of the rental apparatus out of storage, when the apparatus body is out of storage; record the status and the usage-time variable of each of the apparatus bodies uploaded by the wireless reader-writer and update the number of the rental apparatus out of storage, when the apparatus body is put in storage; calculate a difference between the usage-time variable at the time of in-storage of each of the apparatus bodies and the usage-time variable at the time of out-of-storage of each of the apparatus bodies to obtain current usage time of the apparatus body” it is unclear what the corresponding structure(s) are for the claim limitations “managing unit” (see Claim Interpretation). A review for the specification shows that it fails to disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for forming the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the entire claimed function. That is, the Applicant fails to provide corresponding structure or acts that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine its structural or functional equivalence.
Accordingly, because this term is not defined in Applicant’s Specification, the examiner does not understand the scope of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
f) Claim 7 is indefinite, because each of the claim limitations of “the managing unit is further configured to: generate a maintenance or replacement prompt when the usage-time variable of the apparatus body is detected to reach a lifespan threshold” it is unclear what the corresponding structure(s) are for the claim limitations “managing unit” (see Claim Interpretation). A review for the specification shows that it fails to disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for forming the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the entire claimed function. That is, the Applicant fails to provide corresponding structure or acts that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine its structural or functional equivalence.
Accordingly, because this term is not defined in Applicant’s Specification, the examiner does not understand the scope of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claim 1 recites the abstract idea of stocking and managing a rental apparatuses, see specification [0001]. This idea is described by the steps of
cyclically execute a time counting event when a connected apparatus body is detected to be powered on, and stop execution of the time counting event when the connected apparatus body is detected to be powered off, the time counting event being configured to calculate a usage-time variable of the apparatus body, and write the usage-time variable into tag;
read data of the tag on the apparatus body when the apparatus body passes through the entrance and the exit of the warehouse, and send the data,
count in-and-out-of-storage of the apparatus body based on the data.
These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the above abstract idea limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claim to simply recites steps of following rules or instructions to stocking and managing a rental apparatuses based on calculating time of apparatus usage. The Examiner additionally finds the claims to be similar to an example the courts have identified as being a certain method of organizing human activity:
i. considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
ii. In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 911 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1011.
iii. assigning hair designs to balance head shape, In re Brown, 645 Fed. Appx. 1014, 1015-16 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: the rental apparatus: comprising a plurality of apparatus bodies, a usage-time counting unit connected to each of the apparatus bodies, and a wireless tag provided within the apparatus body, a warehouse managing unit, including a wireless reader-writer arranged at an entrance and an exit of a warehouse, and a managing unit, wireless
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to 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).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding 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).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-10 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claim 1 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-10 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims claim 1 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 2-3: the time counting event
Claim 4: the rental apparatus, wireless, the wireless reader-writer,
Claim 5: electronic ink screen, wireless,
Claim 6: managing unit, the wireless reader-writer,
Claim 8: the rental apparatus comprises an LED display screen or a lighting apparatus.
Claim 9: when the rental apparatus is the LED display screen and the apparatus body is a display-screen body, the rental apparatus further comprises a brightness detecting unit connected to each of the display-screen bodies,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of stocking and managing a rental apparatuses, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-10, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20030097304 to Hunt (“Hunt”) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150346250 to LIU (“LIU”).
Regarding claim 1. Hunt discloses a system for stocking and managing a rental apparatus, comprising:
the rental apparatus: (Hunt, Fig. 1, [0009]; “Automated Unmanned Rental System 100 has a Central Rental Processing Center 102 which is in communication with a number of individual Unmanned Rental Sites 106”) comprising
a plurality of apparatus bodies, (Hunt, [0011]; “rental equipment”)
a usage-time counting unit connected to each of the apparatus bodies, and
a wireless tag provided within the apparatus body; (Hunt, [0011]; “Automated Unmanned Rental System 100 … where Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags may be affixed to the rental equipment”)
the time counting event being configured to calculate a usage-time variable of the apparatus body, and write the usage-time variable into a wireless tag; (Hunt, [0034]; “Reporting Module 326 outputs reports regarding equipment rental activity … date and time the equipment was removed or returned. Automated Billing Module 328 may create invoices from the daily equipment rental activity”)
a warehouse managing unit, including a wireless reader-writer arranged at an entrance and an exit of a warehouse, and a managing unit, (Hunt, [0019-0020]; “Computer System 214 … controls an RFID tracking system that utilizes the RFID tags on each piece … in cooperation with Antennas 216. Antennas 216 send and receive Signals 218 that interact with the RFID tags when the equipment containing the RFID tag passes through Portal 220. In one embodiment of the invention, a passive RFID system is used. One skilled in the art will recognize that an active RFID system could also be used … Portal 220 may be a doorway, a gate, or a pass through opening”)
the wireless reader-writer being configured to read data of the wireless tag on the apparatus body when the apparatus body passes through the entrance and the exit (Hunt, [0055]; “In step 466 a first RFID input signal is received by Antennas 216 as the first piece of audio visual equipment is returned to Automated Unmanned Rental Station 200 by the authorized user through Portal 220”) of the warehouse, (Hunt, [0019-0020]; “Antennas 216 send and receive Signals 218 that interact with the RFID tags when the equipment containing the RFID tag passes through Portal 220 … Portal 220 may be a doorway, a gate, or a pass through opening .. . Antennas 216 may be any of the common types well known in the art. Antennas 216 may be located in a number of different positions around Portal 220 depending upon their type and the dimensions of Portal 220”) and
send the data to the managing unit, the managing unit being configured to count in-and-out-of-storage of the apparatus body based on the data. (Hunt, [0042-0059]; “User Interface Module 322 displays the “Begin Transaction” screen on Graphics Display 310 … If step 426 determines that “Return Equipment” input was received in step 424 … … step 480 the User Interface Module 322 displays the “Begin Transaction” screen on Graphics Display 310 … If a match is found in step 491, then in step 492 a rental transaction record is created, pulling the data from Inventory Database Module 338 corresponding to the unique data received … the rental transaction record may be automatically transmitted to a predetermined location”)
Hunt substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Hunt fails to explicitly disclose the “the usage-time counting unit being configured to cyclically execute a time counting event when a connected apparatus body is detected to be powered on, and stop execution of the time counting event when the connected apparatus body is detected to be powered off”. However, LIU teaches
the usage-time counting unit being configured to cyclically execute a time counting event when a connected apparatus body is detected to be powered on, and stop execution of the time counting event when the connected apparatus body is detected to be powered off, (LIU, [0023]; “method 100 may, for example, be executed in the terminal 3 for counting electricity consumption of the electronic devices 4 using the smart electricity meter 1”, [0024-0026]; “At 103, a working period of each smart switch 2 within a set counting period is determined … The status of each smart switch 2 is an on-state or an off-state. The on-state and off-state of the smart switch 2 respectively correspond to an on-state and an off-state of the electronic device 4 connected thereto … The working period of a smart switch 2 refers to a total time period within which the smart switch 2 is in the on-state. The counting period refers to a time period for counting the electricity consumption”, [0045]; “At 207, a working period of each smart switch 2 within a set counting period is determined … it is monitored whether a turning-on instruction for turning on a smart switch 2 is detected. When the turning-on instruction is detected, the corresponding smart switch 2 is turned on, and a timer corresponding to the turned-on smart switch 2 starts timing. In some embodiments, one timer corresponds to one smart switch 2. Further, it is monitored whether a turning-off instruction for turning off a smart switch 2 is detected”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hunt to include the usage-time counting unit being configured to cyclically execute a time counting event when a connected apparatus body is detected to be powered on, and stop execution of the time counting event when the connected apparatus body is detected to be powered off, as taught by LIU, where this would be performed in order to reduce effort from a user to monitor the electricity consumption of every connected device. See LIU [0004-0005].
Regarding claim 2. The combination of Hunt in view of LIU discloses the system for stocking and managing the rental apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the time counting event is specifically configured to: turn on a first timer for timing; accrue an updated interval variable once on the usage-time variable, when the timing of the first timer is equal to the updated interval variable; and reset the first timer. (Hunt, [0036]; “The data is organized to allow Equipment Rental Software 320 to store when RFID tags are passed through the portal, and then allow Equipment Rental Software 320 to calculate the time period between RFID reads”)
Regarding claim 3. claim 3 recites operations that are no more than a predictable variation or duplication of the operations recited in claim 2, albeit with so-called “second timer” Such features would have been an obvious product of ordinary skill in art and common sense, not innovation. That is, the claimed subject matter is no more than a predictable combination of known elements according to their established purposes. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418421 (2007); see also MPEP § 2144.04 VI, B.
Regarding claim 4. The combination of Hunt in view of LIU discloses the system for stocking and managing the rental apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rental apparatus is further configured to write a status of the apparatus body into the wireless tag; the data of the wireless tag read by the wireless reader-writer includes a status of the apparatus body and the usage-time variable. (Hunt, [0052]; “If step 452 determines that the RFID input is valid, then in step 456 a rental transaction record is created, pulling the data from the inventory database … the item's status in the inventory list in Inventory Database Module 338 is changed from “checked in” to “checked out.” )
Regarding claim 6. The combination of Hunt in view of LIU discloses the system for stocking and managing the rental apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the managing unit is specifically configured to: record the status and the usage-time variable of each of the apparatus bodies uploaded by the wireless reader-writer and update the number of the rental apparatus out of storage, when the apparatus body is out of storage; (Hunt, [0021]; “The inventory database contains pertinent information in various database fields on each piece of audio visual equipment with the passive RFID tag that is assigned to this particular Unmanned Rental Site 106”, [0026]; “the equipment rental software interprets the received signal to acquire the unique data embedded on the RFID tag, and accesses the information stored in the inventory … date/time stamp)
record the status and the usage-time variable of each of the apparatus bodies uploaded by the wireless reader-writer and update the number of the rental apparatus out of storage, when the apparatus body is put in storage; (Hunt, [0027]; “Central Rental Processing Center 102 upon each occurrence, or in a batch at a specified time each day, or on one or more specified days of each week or month, via Communications Medium 104. Various reports may also be transmitted including, but not limited to, inventory status, equipment rental charges, reference numbers, identities of authorized users removing and returning equipment, and date and time the equipment was removed or returned to Automated Unmanned Rental Station 200”, [0052]; “the item's status in the inventory list in Inventory Database Module 338 is changed from “checked in” to “checked out.” )”)
calculate a difference between the usage-time variable at the time of in-storage of each of the apparatus bodies and the usage-time variable at the time of out-of-storage of each of the apparatus bodies to obtain current usage time of the apparatus body. (Hunt, [0034]; “Reporting Module 326 outputs reports regarding equipment rental activity … date and time the equipment was removed or returned. Automated Billing Module 328 may create invoices from the daily equipment rental activity”)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of LIU further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100177070 to Zhu et al. (“Zhu”).
Regarding claim 5. The combination of Hunt in view of LIU discloses the system for stocking and managing the rental apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the apparatus body is further
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fail to explicitly disclose the “provided thereon with an electronic ink screen; the electronic ink screen is configured to read and display the status of the apparatus and the usage-time variable in the wireless tag when the connected apparatus body is detected to be powered off”. However, Zhu teaches
provided thereon with an electronic ink screen; (Zhu, [0084]; “a plurality of wireless electronic-ink based display devices (e.g. labels, signs, tags, displays, etc) 2A through 2D as shown in FIGS. 5A and 5C” [0016]; “FIGS. 1A1 and 1A2, showing only the back-end system being wirelessly interfaced with the plurality of RFID readers, electronic-ink display devices and wireless/mobile PDA and terminals”)
the electronic ink screen is configured to read and display the status of the apparatus and the usage-time variable in the wireless tag when the connected apparatus body is detected to be powered off. (Zhu, [0077]; “electronic-ink display devices may include, for example, electronic-ink display tags, display devices, and display labels, as well as pricing signs for retail environments, assembly instruction displays for manufacturing environments”, [0085]; “program messages to be displayed on wireless electronic-ink based display devices, operably connected to the wireless communication network”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hunt to include provided thereon with an electronic ink screen; the electronic ink screen is configured to read and display the status of the apparatus and the usage-time variable in the wireless tag when the connected apparatus body is detected to be powered off, as taught by Zhu, where this would be performed in order to provide improved ways of conserving electrical power resources provided in such wireless electronic-ink display devices until time of use. See Zhu [0002].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of LIU further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160373321 to Plaza (“Plaza”).
Regarding claim 7. The combination of Hunt in view of LIU discloses the system for stocking and managing the rental apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the managing unit is further configured to:
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fail to explicitly disclose the “generate a maintenance or replacement prompt when the usage-time variable of the apparatus body is detected to reach a lifespan threshold”. However, Plaza teaches
generate a maintenance or replacement prompt when the usage-time variable of the apparatus body is detected to reach a lifespan threshold. (Plaza, [0034]; “The numerical lifespan inde