DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in reply to Applicants response after non-final rejection received on October 15, 2025. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application is a continuation of PCT JP2022/004625 filed on February 7, 2022, which claims foreign priority to Japan 2021-122959, filed on July 28, 2021.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 5-8, and 10-15 in the response filed on October 15, 2025. No claims are canceled at this time.
The Examiner notes the correction to the Title of the invention.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-15 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is a method and device for notifying an executor to perform an action which is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent device Claim 14 and product Claim 15. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
acquiring apparatus information on an apparatus;
determining an action for the apparatus based on the apparatus information;
determining an executor who is to perform the determined action from among multiple users by referencing prestored role information that associates a content of an action for the apparatus with a user who is to perform the content of the action;
determining a notification target person to be notified that the executor is to perform the action with reference to relationship information indicating a relationship among the multiple users; and
notifying the determined notification target person of notification information indicating that the executor is to perform the action.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Process”. Collecting information regarding an apparatus, determining an action is to be performed, determining who needs to perform the action, and notifying a target person and the entity to perform the action recites concept performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The device in Claim 14 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program to cause a computer to perform in Claim 15 appears to be just software. Claims 14 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Collecting information regarding an apparatus, determining an action is to be performed, determining who needs to perform the action, and notifying a target person and the entity to perform the action recites managing personal behavior or relationships. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The device in Claim 14 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program to cause a computer to perform in Claim 15 appears to be just software. Claims 14 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a computer [preamble] (Claim 1) a device (claim 14) and/or non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program (Claim 15). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 14, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware 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. See Applicant’s specification para. [0047] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [The mobile terminals 3A, 3B, and 3C are smartphones or tablet computers, for example,] and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 14, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-13 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims 2-13 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-15 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharp Corp. JP 2015/018502A (hereafter Sharp).
Regarding claim 1, Sharp discloses acquiring apparatus information on an apparatus (see at least The present invention relates to an information notification apparatus that notifies a user of information.);
determining an action for the apparatus based on the apparatus information (see at least It is a figure which shows the example of the screen display displayed on the portable terminal of the user who wrote the error message which notifies the error which the agent server of FIG. 1 cannot solve by the user, and requested | required the information linked | related with the error message.);
determining an executor who is to perform the determined action from among multiple users (see at least Data structure and specifics of a message-URL correspondence table that defines a solution display URL that is associated with an error message that notifies an error that has occurred in a home device and a user attribute, and a person in charge that is associated with the error message It is a figure which shows an example.) by referencing prestored role information that associates a content of an action for the apparatus with a user who is to perform the content of the action (see at least Each error message in the message-URL correspondence table 31 depends on the difficulty, danger associated with the work required for the solution to solve the error notified by the error message, and the presence / absence of authority such as purchasing consumables. The error messages are classified into the following three types. That is, each error message is classified based on what attribute the user can resolve.
(1) Can be solved by both adults and children (“Yes” in “Can an adult solve?” And “Yes” in “Can a child solve?”)
(2) If it is an adult, it can be solved (“○” in “Can an adult solve?” And “×” in “Can a child solve?”)
(3) The user cannot solve the problem and needs a serviceman (“×” in “Can an adult solve?” And “×” in “Can a child solve?”).;
determining a notification target person to be notified that the executor is to perform the action with reference to relationship information indicating a relationship among the multiple users (see at least The family message board system 100 is a system that provides an electronic message board for communication between registered community members. Further, as will be described in detail later, in the family message board system 100, a message related to status information of the home device 5 such as error information of a device arranged in the home (hereinafter referred to as the home device 5) is sent to the family message board server. 2 is written in the family SNS provided by 2.); and
notifying the determined notification target person of notification information indicating that the executor is to perform the action (see at least (1) Can be solved by both adults and children (“Yes” in “Can an adult solve?” And “Yes” in “Can a child solve?”)(2) If it is an adult, it can be solved (“○” in “Can an adult solve?” And “×” in “Can a child solve?”)(3) The user cannot solve the problem and needs a serviceman (“×” in “Can an adult solve?” And “×” in “Can a child solve?”).
For example, in order to solve the error notified by the error message M2 of “air conditioner-chan” (corresponding to error code E-600 of AY-123), the filter of the air conditioner 52 installed in the high place of the wall of the room is used. It may be dangerous for children to do, such as requiring removal. Therefore, the error notified by the error message M2 is considered to be an error that should not be solved by the child.).
Regarding claim 2, Sharp discloses wherein the notification target person is a user different from the executor, and
the notification information includes information prompting the notification target person to notify the executor that the executor is to perform the action (see at least In the error message from “air conditioner-chan”, a solution display URL for acquiring from the information providing server 6 a solution for an air conditioner error whose error code is E-600 is associated as related information. For example, in the example shown in FIG. 3, the member clicks the portion of the character string “here” included in “Please help me here (error code: E-600)” using the mobile terminal for own use. Then, a solution display URL for acquiring the notified error solution from the information providing server 6 is transmitted to the clicked user. At this time, the family message board server 2 acquires the mobile terminal identification information of the mobile terminal used for the click, and sends the acquired mobile terminal identification information to the agent server 1a. The agent server 1a identifies a user who has requested a solution for solving an error from the acquired mobile terminal identification information, and acquires an error solution suitable for the attribute of the user from the information providing server 6. The solution display URL is determined and transmitted to the user as related information. If a child turns on the air condition and receives an error message. The server indicates an error and decided who should be alerted. The child can see the alert and either ask for instructions on resolution, or ask for help).
Regarding claim 3, Sharp discloses wherein the notification target person is the same user as the executor (see at least In the example illustrated in FIG. 3, the agent server 1 a sends a message from “air conditioner” to the family SNS used by “papa”, “mama”, and “hanako”. -Please refer to here to help me (Error code: E-600) ". The error message written by the agent server 1a is displayed on the mobile terminals 4a, 4b, and 4c used by “Dad”, “Mama”, and “Hanako” when they use the family SNS. Thereby, the error which arose in the air conditioner 52 can be notified with respect to all the members who use the family SNS. Dad gets the alert and is the one to solve the error).
Regarding claim 4, Sharp discloses wherein the relationship information includes table information in which each of the multiple users is associated with a priority for corresponding one of the multiple users, and in determining the notification target person, a user having a highest priority and being associated with the executor is determined as the notification target person with reference to the relationship information (see at least Here, it is detected that either the first person in charge or the second person in charge has written in the family SNS, and an error message M5 associated with the written second person in charge “mother” T2 is displayed. The example used is shown. That is, in the case of FIG. 20, the writing by the second person “mother” T2 written at 12:58 two minutes after the error occurred at 12:56 is detected, and the associated error message is detected. M5 is being written. However, a priority order may be provided between the first person in charge and the second person in charge, and the timing for writing the error message may be changed according to the priority order. For example, even if the writing by the second person in charge “mother” T2 is detected until one hour has passed since the error occurred at 12:56, the error message M5 is not written and one hour or more has passed. When the writing by the first person in charge is not performed, the error message M5 may be written.).
Regarding claim 5, Sharp discloses wherein in determining the notification target person, when a user having a highest priority and being associated with the executor belongs to a layer group to which the executor belongs, with reference to layer information indicating that each of the multiple users belongs to one of multiple hierarchical layer groups and the relationship information, the user having the highest priority and the executor are each determined as the notification target person, and
when the user having the highest priority associated with the executor belongs to a layer group to which the executor does not belong, only the user having the highest priority is determined as the notification target person (see at least As shown in FIG. 2, the family message board system 100 includes an agent server 1a, a family message board server 2, a home server 3, and an information providing server 6. Moreover, if the member using family SNS accesses family message board server 2 using personal digital assistants 4a, 4b, and 4c which each user (for example, father, mother, child) included in a member possesses, family SNS It is possible to write to and browse family SNS. The home server 3 is connected to home devices 5 such as a cleaning robot 51, an air conditioner 52, a lighting device 53, a refrigerator 54, and a PC (Personal Computer) 55 by wired or wireless communication. Note that the type and number of the portable terminal 4 and the home device 5 shown in FIG. 2 are not particularly limited. In addition to the above, the home device 5 may include various devices such as a television, a recording device, an air purifier, a washing machine, a facsimile, a fire alarm, and a surveillance camera. Notification where adults are the highest group and “dad” is the executor and the child receives a message which requires at least mom [adult] to manage, who is not the executor).
Regarding claim 9, Sharp discloses wherein the apparatus information includes information on an error that has occurred in the apparatus, information on maintenance of the apparatus, or information indicating a predetermined function of the apparatus, selected by a user (see at least For example, when classifying by using age as a user attribute, it may be adult / child or old / adult / child. As user attributes, classification by age and classification by male / female can be used together. However, the URL for displaying the solution for acquiring the error solution from the information providing server 6 is preferably in accordance with the nature of the solution that the user acquires from the information providing server 6 according to the URL for displaying the solution. . In the following, an example in which the classification of adult or child is used as the user attribute will be described.).
Regarding claim 10, Sharp discloses wherein in notifying the determined notification target person by the notification information, the notification information is transmitted to a terminal held by the notification target person (see at least The URL determination unit 25 refers to the user attribute table 32 stored in the storage unit 30 and determines the user attribute of the user who uses the mobile terminal 4 from the acquired mobile terminal identification information. The URL determination unit 25 is associated with an error message for which related information is requested by the user, and a solution display URL for acquiring a solution for the error from the information providing server 6 accessible from the mobile terminal 4 Is determined as related information to be transmitted to the user.).
Regarding claim 11, Sharp discloses wherein in notifying the determined notification target person by the notification information, the notification information is transmitted to an apparatus that is used most frequently by the notification target person with reference to use history information indicating use history of multiple apparatuses of the respective multiple users (see at least the user who requested the most error solution, or the user who requested the last error solution, etc., and related to each error message based on the history of the user who requested the related information. Determine the person in charge. If the determined person in charge is different from the person in charge defined in the message-URL correspondence table 31d of the agent server 1d, the person-in-charge update unit 245 displays the person in charge defined in the message-URL correspondence table 31d. Change to the assigned person.).
Regarding claim 12, Sharp discloses wherein in notifying the determined notification target person by the notification information, when the executor is the notification target person, a time period in which the notification target person uses the apparatus on which the action is performed is identified with reference to the use history information indicating use history of multiple apparatuses of the respective multiple users, and the notification information is transmitted to an apparatus to be used by the notification target person by a predetermined time before the identified time period (see at least The person-in-charge update unit 245 acquires, from the mobile terminal identification information acquisition unit 24, the mobile terminal identification information of the user's mobile terminal 4 used for requesting related information, and totals the error messages. For example, the user who requested the most error solution, or the user who requested the last error solution, etc., and related to each error message based on the history of the user who requested the related information. Determine the person in charge. If the determined person in charge is different from the person in charge defined in the message-URL correspondence table 31d of the agent server 1d, the person-in-charge update unit 245 displays the person in charge defined in the message-URL correspondence table 31d. Change to the assigned person.).
Regarding claim 13, Sharp discloses wherein in notifying the determined notification target person by the notification information, a series of actions in which the notification target person uses the respective multiple apparatuses is grouped and arranged in time series with reference to the use history information indicating use history of the multiple apparatuses of the respective multiple users, a group is identified in which the notification target person uses the apparatus on which the action is to be performed, and the notification information is transmitted to an apparatus used in a last action of a group immediately before the identified group, an apparatus used in a first action of the identified group, or an apparatus used in a last action of the identified group (see at least the user who requested the most error solution, or the user who requested the last error solution, etc., and related to each error message based on the history of the user who requested the related information. Determine the person in charge. If the determined person in charge is different from the person in charge defined in the message-URL correspondence table 31d of the agent server 1d, the person-in-charge update unit 245 displays the person in charge defined in the message-URL correspondence table 31d. Change to the assigned person. And The person-in-charge update unit 245 determines, for example, a user who has requested the most error solution or a user who has solved the previous error, and the message-URL based on the history of the user who requested the related information. The person in charge specified in the correspondence table 31 is updated. And In addition, by determining the person in charge associated with the error message based on the history of the user who requested the error solution, the user who has responded to the error message in the past and can resolve the error correctly Can be the person in charge. By associating a user who has experience handling each error message as a person in charge, the error message can be used more effectively.).
Claims 14 and 15 is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp Corp. JP 2015/018502A (hereafter Sharp ‘502) in view of Sharp Corp. 2016/057770A (hereafter Sharp ‘770)
Regarding claim 6, Sharp ‘502 discloses that of claim 1 and further comprising: acquiring execution completion information indicating that the action is performed on the apparatus when the action is performed on the apparatus;
determining each of the multiple users or a user other than the user who is notified of the notification information first among the multiple users as the notification target person, when the execution completion information is not acquired even when a predetermined time elapsed after the determined notification target person is notified by the notification information (see at least In addition, when the agent server 1d inputs the message M6 after the resolution to the family message board server 2, it is desirable to delete the corresponding error message M4 from the family SNS. That is, when the error of the home device 5 notified by the error message is resolved, the agent server 1d deletes the error message that notifies the resolved error. As a result, it is possible to prevent a waste that the user corresponds to an already resolved error message. The number of times that the error message is written to the family SNS is not particularly limited. An unresolved error message may be repeatedly written to the family SNS. Thereby, the opportunity for the user to see the error message increases, and early error resolution can be promoted. And Each error message in the message-URL correspondence table 31 depends on the difficulty, danger associated with the work required for the solution to solve the error notified by the error message, and the presence / absence of authority such as purchasing consumables. The error messages are classified into the following three types. That is, each error message is classified based on what attribute the user can resolve.); and
Sharp ‘502 discloses that repeated message may be sent for unresolved errors however the reference does not indicate a time elapsed.
Sharp ‘770 discloses notifying the determined notification target person of the notification information again (see at least The information providing method determination unit 103 that has transmitted the message requesting processing to the information providing unit 105 waits for reception of a request acceptance notification (S31). If the reception of the request acceptance notification cannot be confirmed within the predetermined time (NO in S31), the progress management process ends. In this case, a message requesting to accept the request again may be transmitted.) therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the notification system and method disclosed in Sharp ‘502 with the indication of repeated messages for unresolved errors which have not been remedied in a determined time as taught by Sharp ‘770 as addressing errors and maintenance is necessary for both the appliance and the one or more users as utilizing known techniques to known devices yields predictable results (KSR C).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp Corp. JP 2015/018502A (hereafter Sharp ‘502) in view of Sharp Corp. 2016/057770A (hereafter Sharp ‘770) in further view of Bell U.S. Publication 2017/0032332 A1 (hereafter Bell)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sharp ‘502 and ‘770 discloses that of claim 6 but fail to disclose restricting use of the apparatus after notification.
Bell discloses, in the same field of invention, the ability to restrict or disable the apparatus based on a service notification (see at least [0047]) therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the combination of Sharp ‘502 and ‘770 disclosing a notification system with the apparatus restriction based on service information as taught by Bell as combining known prior art elements yields predictable results (KSR A).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp Corp. JP 2015/018502A (hereafter Sharp ‘502) in view of Sharp Corp. 2016/057770A (hereafter Sharp ‘770) in further view of Mansfield et al. U.S. Publication 2017/00004508 A1 (hereafter Mansfield)
Regarding claim 8, Sharp ‘502 and ‘770 discloses that of claim 1 and acquiring completion information indicating that the action is performed on the apparatus and for communicating unresolved error messages to the server and thus to the user group.
The combination fails to disclose where the response time to the error and resolution is stored in memory.
Mansfield discloses, in the same field of invention, automated management is a smart appliance residing at an owners location where the service platform receives a event messages from the smart applicant and determines an appropriate service response and outbound call by accessing past information and performing triage to determine root failures. Repair information is gathered to diagnose a repair and schedule service by dispatching providers based on service call data where the engine 254 constantly ranks service providers 132 on various parameters including service response time, customer input, lowest cost, and fewest callback (see at least [0062]) therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the applicant error notification system as disclosed by Sharp ‘502 and ‘770 with the outbound service call and repair system as disclosed by Mansfield for managing service providers based on at least historical service response times as combining prior art elements is known to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
The Applicants remarks begin on page 9 of the response from October 15, 2025. The Applicant begins with the summary of the claims and the amendment to the tile of the invention. The arguments begin on page 10 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101. The Applicants assert that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Are integrated into a practical application. And recite significantly more than an abstract idea (remarks page 10).
The arguments state that amended claim 1 recite features which perform a concrete and technical process rooted in computer technology and cannot practically be performed in the mind. Citing three limitations of claim 1 including two determining steps and a notification limitation the Applicant states that the first determining step recites concrete and technical process rooted in computer technology (e.g. a prestored data structure) and further reciting a specific implementation that improves the function of a computer (remarks page 11). The arguments further attack the Office Action in their lack of awareness of where the human mind can store computer based tables.
The Arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner points to the claim where the steps are simply performed by a computer. This is simply the “Apply it” standard of a limitation simply being applied to computer technology. In terms of evaluation for Practical Application, the computer is understood to be used as a tool to perform the judicial exception. In fact the referenced limitations are ones which are covered in the MPEP under 2106.05 as actions and functions which the courts have deemed well-understood, routine, and conventional activities or as insignificant extra solution activities. Retrieving data from a database is not more that iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) II.
Transmitting a notification informing the executor is simply i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) II.
Additionally, the Office Action usually includes where the mental processes are capable of being performed but for the inclusion of additional elements of a claim. There are not additional elements listed in claim 1 and the steps are simply “applied” to a computer. This is not indicative of practical application and does not constitute significantly more than the judicial exception.
The argument move on to where the data structure os used to determine and notify a target person by a notification screen (remarks page 12). Applicant argues that notifying, which a display screen 201, is a physical act and not a mental process. This Applicant argues against the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Applicant further argues that the amendment to claim 1 places meaningful limits on practicing the method of claim 1 and therefore overcomes the rejection.
The Examiner disagrees. The amendment to at least claim 1 does not overcome the outstanding rejection. Simply accessing stored information in a database is well defined by the courts as a well understood and routing function by a computer. With respect to the display argument, the Examiner does nota agree as the display is not an elements which is even mentioned in the claims. The Applicant is arguing features which are simply not included in the claims and therefore carry no weight in the argument that the exception is anything more than use of a computer as a tool.
Applicant arguments (remarks page 13) take the position that the amendments to claim 1 recite how the executor is determined, based on a prestored role information that associates content of an action for the apparatus to a user who is to perform the contents of the action. Applicant believe this imposes meaningful limits on the method and this relates to practical application.
Further, the Applicant claims improvement in the function of a computer or another technology or technical field citing specific paragraphs (remarks page 13). The cited paragraphs state that a technological problem is “an executor who is supposed to take steps to execute an action to address a machine need may not do so” and this solution to a technological problem is “by notifying an additional person who has the type of relationship with the executor that will likely result in reminding the executor to take the needed action”. Applicants arguments are that a computer reminder is a computer based solution to a technical problem of ensuring machine maintenance is reliably performed.
The Examiner is not in agreement. First, the maintenance reminder notification is not a technical problem. This is a technical solution to a maintenance or business problem. Additionally, the idea that the solution is a notification based on a stored list of persons who can solve the problem is squarely defined in the MEPE 2106.05(d) II. section where storage and retrieval of information in a memory, and sending notification are two functions so common they are clearly stated multiple times as routing and conventional or nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity.
The Examiner further considers this a judicial exception as one does not necessarily need the information to be stored in a computer to execute the methods steps. If a person has a notification form their furnace that attention is required then when addressing the indicator it’s established through though if the homeowner is equipped to handle the issue or a service technical is needed to address the cause. For example, the Examiner has personal experience with this. When the furnace is used for heading season the filter should be changed at the start of the season. This is a task the homeowner can perform rather quickly replacing the old filter with a new one. Further, at the start of heating season the homeowner should assess when the last time the oil burner was serviced. If it’s been between 12-24 months since it was performed the a service technician should be scheduled to check, clean, replace the nozzle, and make sure the system is performing to operating standards. Additionally, for example if the thermostat calls the furnace and there is no response, the homeowner would probably know that a service technical with more experience and skill is needed to assess and determine the cause of the issue.
The idea of accessing a database for a determination and sending of a notification is not indicative or integration into practical application.
The arguments move on to the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 102 an 103. The Applicants position is that the amended claim 1 includes features that are not disclosed by the Sharp Corp. reference (remarks pages 15-16). The Applicant argues that the instant claims recite a multi step determination and thein notification where the cited prior art only has a single step process of determining the notification target. Applicant claims their two step approach identifies a responsible party via a data structure and then identifies the most effective person to notify the responsible party.
The Examiner does not agree that the claims have a novel step. The concept of retrieving information from a database and notifying an executor to remind the responsible party is not a technical solution to a technical problem. Also, it’s simply a judicial exception applied to a computer. At the present time the rejection under 102 is withdrawn. The Examiner reserves the right to use the cited references at a later time is so necessary.
In summary, the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 102 and 103 have been withdrawn at this time. The rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101 remains. The claims are not allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 February 6, 2026.