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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are directed to a statutory server, method, and system under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. However, the claims are further directed toward a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility analysis, namely an abstract idea. Under Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because nothing in the asserted claims purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of “ordering, as a part of one or more services, a new consumable for the target device when the residual quantity is lower than or equal to one or more threshold values”. This falls under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Abstract Idea Groupings, I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS, A. Mathematical Relationships, “iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721”.
Here the claims recite an abstract mathematical concept, namely establishing one or more values including a residual quantity related to a currently-used consumable in a target device, within one or more ranges within which one or more threshold values can be set. Furthermore, comparing collected information to a predefined threshold is also considered to be a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, or comparison.
The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se, i.e. server, interface, target device, controller, storage, etc., amount(s) to no more than implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer system. MPEP 2106.05 provides: iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). If the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). In this case the claims recite gathering historical data from a device and comparing that data to a threshold to determine how to order a consumable. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoden, US 20200226535 A1 in view of MPEP 2144 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale.
1. A server comprising:
a communication interface configured to communicate with a target device, the target device being configured to consume a consumable, (see Yoden, abstract, ¶ 2)(consumable items may include an item consumed by a machine to perform a predetermined operation, such as toner used by a photocopier or a printer); and
a controller configured to perform: receiving a request to modify a target service for the target device to a first service from a second service different from the first service, (see Yoden, ¶ 148)(The printer 400 may be a device configured to print text or graphics on paper or other printing material, which may be situated or installed in a facility associated with the seller, such as an office or warehouse under control of the seller, a delivery or courier service provider outsourced by the seller, etc.), each of the first service and the second service being a service in which a new consumable is to be ordered for the target device on the basis of a residual quantity related to a currently-used consumable in the target device, (see Yoden, abstract)(The device associated with a consumable item may automatically issue a request associated with the consumable item to the server over network, upon determining that the consumable item has exhausted, finished up, worn out, or otherwise needs to be replaced with a new one);
acquiring specific information in response to the request, the specific information being related to an order placed for a new consumable while the target service has been set to the second service for the target device, (see Yoden, ¶ 4)(the purchase may typically involve logging in an online store; selecting and ordering the identified item; and waiting for the ordered item to be delivered to the user's home);
setting a first threshold value on the basis of the specific information, (see Yoden, ¶ 117)(The device 100 may determine affirmatively at the step S1 upon detecting that the consumable item has been consumed over a predetermined threshold); and
ordering, as a part of the first service, a new consumable for the target device when the residual quantity is lower than or equal to the first threshold value, (see Yoden, ¶ 116-118)(Details of Automatic Ordering).
Yoden fails to explicitly disclose a second service for the target device, second service history, second threshold value, second range value, second type value, second server, second communication interface, second controller, etc. However, such secondary features are obvious over Yoden in view of MPEP 2144 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale, VI. REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS, B. Duplication of Parts, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced). Here, no new and unexpected result is produced by using secondary features such as: a second service for the target device, second service history, second threshold value, second range value, second type value, second server, second communication interface, second controller, etc).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yoden and Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. The motivation would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This motivation is applied to all claims below by reference.
2. The server according to claim 1, wherein the specific information includes second-service history information, the second-service history information being information related to a history of consumption of the consumable used in the target device in a period of time for which the target service has been set to the second service, wherein the setting sets the first threshold value by adjusting a first reference threshold value on the basis of the second-service history information, (see Yoden, ¶ 141-142)(the server 200 may monitor, examine, or inspect the device 100 as to whether or not the user has replenished or refilled an exhausted consumable item or replaced with a new one of a consumable item without performing the automatic ordering process).
3. The server according to claim 1, wherein in a case that the target service is set to the second service, an order for a new consumable is placed in response to an event that the residual quantity becomes lower than or equal to a second threshold value, wherein the second threshold value is set by adjusting a second reference threshold value on the basis of second-service history information, the second-service history information being information related to a history of consumption of the consumable used in the target device in a period of time for which the target service is set to the second service, wherein the specific information includes the second threshold value, wherein the setting sets the first threshold value on the basis of the second threshold value, (see Yoden, ¶ 141-142)(Upon newly storing a measurement result, the server 200 may determine whether or not there is increase by more than a predetermined threshold in the amount of the content of the consumable item indicated by the newly stored measurement result, compared to the amount of the same indicated by the previously stored measurement result).
4. The server according to claim 3, further comprising: a storage, wherein the setting sets the first threshold value by referencing correspondence information stored in the storage, the correspondence information including one or more correspondences, each correspondence correlating a first type value with a second type value, the first type value being a value within a first range within which the first threshold value can be set, the second type value being a value within a second range within which the second threshold value can be set, (see Yoden, ¶ 122)(server notifications are considered correspondence information stored in the storage).
5. The server according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to further perform: modifying the first threshold value on the basis of first-service history information, the first-service history information being information related to a history of consumption of the consumable used in an elapsed period of time since modification of the target service to the first service from the second service, (see Yoden, ¶ 129)(the device 100 may operate a timer and continuously (i.e., periodically or at predetermined time intervals) compare the current time with the expiration date indicated by the expiration information… detecting that the consumable item has been consumed over a predetermined threshold, the device 100 may update the determination result 109 to indicate that “the consumable item has been consumed”)
6. The server according to claim 5, wherein the modifying modifies the first threshold value to a weighted sum of the first threshold value and a specific threshold value, the specific threshold value being obtained on the basis of the first-service history information, at least one weight used in the weighted sum being based on the elapsed period of time since the modification of the target service to the first service from the second service, (see Yoden, ¶ 162)(Detection of a weight of the consumable item 1001 below a predetermined threshold may cause the processor 1003 to determine affirmatively).
7. The server according to claim 5, wherein in a case that the elapsed period of time exceeds a reference period, the modifying modifies the first threshold value on the basis of the specific threshold value without using the first threshold value set by the setting, (see Yoden, ¶ 122)(the update, i.e. modification, at the step S5 may include updating the expiration information 108 with the expiration information 208 contained in the notification).
8. The server according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to further perform: acquiring status information related to a current order status of the order placed for the new consumable for the target device while the target service has been set to the second service for the target device; and monitoring, after the target service has been modified to the first service from the second service, the current order status to update the status information, wherein the current order status can be any one of a plurality of statuses including a status in which the order for the new consumable is completed and a status in which replenishment of the target device with the new consumable is completed, (see Yoden, ¶ 15)(the server regularly monitors whether or not the user is using a consumable item that has been shipped to the user's address by the seller according to the shipment process, namely, monitors if the user is continuously using an exhausted consumable item by, for example, refilling it him/herself or using a new consumable item which he/she purchased outside the seller instead of ordering a new consumable item to the seller).
As per claims 9 and 10, these method and system claims contain the same or similar features as claims 1-8 rejected above which are directed toward a server. The rejections above are applied to the remaining claims herein by reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20210182931-A1, US-20180240179-A1, and BR-102012012117-A2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL S GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-7285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5.
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, FLORIAN ZEENDER can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/RUSSELL S GLASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627