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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 12, and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the storage unit” in line 6 of claim 3 should read as “a storage unit”.
“the storage unit” in line 5 of claim 12 should read as “a storage unit”.
“from the server in advance into the storage unit” in line 5 of claim 12 should read as “from a server in advance into a storage unit”.
“the storage unit” in line 8 of claim 14 should read as “a storage unit”.
“the storage unit” in line 9 of claim 15 should read as “a storage unit”.
Claims 4 and 16 are objected to because it is dependent on objected claim 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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 claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a operation unit” in claims 1, 19, and 20, with corresponding structure in Applicant’s Specification filed 09/19/2023, Page 7, Lines 13-15, “a key input unit (keyboard: an operation unit) 11 capable of entering calculation formulas”.
“a display unit” in claims 1, 19 and 20, with corresponding structure in Applicant’s Specification filed 09/19/2023, Page 8, Lines 3-4, “a (touch panel) display unit (display) 21 (see FIG. 3)”.
“the storage unit” in claims 3-4, 12, and 14-16, with corresponding structure in Applicant’s Specification filed 09/19/2023, Page 7, Lines 22-23, “a storage unit (memory) 23 for storing data”.
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 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 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 5, the claims recite “the calculation assistance terminal is superior to the calculation terminal”, where the term “superior” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “superior” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine the scope of the invention. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “The calculation assistance terminal used in the calculation assistance system” which is already recited as “A calculation assistance system comprising”… “a calculation assistance terminal, wherein”… “the calculation assistance terminal performs the processes of determining” in independent claim 1, which claim 17 is dependent on, and thus does not further limit the subject matter of independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “The calculation terminal used in the calculation assistance system” which is already recited as “The calculation assistance system comprising a calculation terminal”… “the calculation terminal performs the processes of acquiring” in independent claim 1, which claim 18 is dependent on, and thus does not further limit the subject matter of independent claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-19 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.
Under Step 1, claims 1-18 recite a system comprising terminals, and therefore is a machine. Claim 19 recites a method, and therefore is a process.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “performing calculating on the basis of the calculation formula information”, “the calculation assistance terminal performs the processes of determining whether the calculation being performed by the calculation terminal is to be assisted on the basis of the calculation formulation information”, and “in the case of determining that the calculation is to be assisted, outputting calculation assistance information”.
Since the claim recites a generic computer element/circuit to perform calculating formulas and determining assistance with calculating formulas, the act of performing calculating formulas, determining if the calculations require assistance, and outputting calculation assistance are mental steps. Applicant’s Specification filed 09/19/2023 discloses that calculation formulas include quadratic equations (See Page 12, Lines 1-3). The judicial exception is therefore mathematical/logical operations. Accordingly, the claim is directed to reciting an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong 2, the generic computer elements are not sufficiently integrating the act of performing calculation formula operations into a practical application. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely incorporate the steps into a system comprising a calculation terminal and a calculation assistance terminal. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, claims 1-18 do not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely incorporate these steps into a system containing a calculation terminal and a calculation assistance terminal, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii) A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 19 recites the calculation terminal “performs calculation on the basis of the calculation formula information” and the calculation assistance terminal “determines whether the calculation being performed by the calculation terminal is to be assisted on the basis of the calculation formula information”, and “in the case of determining that the calculation is to be assisted, the calculation assistance terminal outputs calculation assistance information”.
Since the claim recites a generic computer element/circuit to perform calculating formulas and determining assistance with calculating formulas, the act of performing calculating formulas, determining if the calculations require assistance, and outputting calculation assistance are mental steps. Applicant’s Specification filed 09/19/2023 discloses that calculation formulas include quadratic equations (See Page 12, Lines 1-3). The judicial exception is therefore mathematical/logical operations. Accordingly, the claim is directed to reciting an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong 2, the generic computer elements are not sufficiently integrating the act of performing calculation formula operations into a practical application. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely incorporate the steps into a system comprising a calculation terminal and a calculation assistance terminal. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, claim 19 does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely incorporate these steps into a system containing a calculation terminal and a calculation assistance terminal, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii) A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim states “A storage medium containing a program” however neither the claim nor the specification states that the storage medium is non-transitory, thus the claimed subject matter could fall under transitory signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in this Office action, and if the Claim Objections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, none of the cited references either alone or in combination teaches a calculation assistance system comprising a calculation terminal and a calculation assistance terminal, wherein: the calculation terminal has an operation unit and a display unit; with the calculation terminal in a state where a communication connection is established with the calculation assistance terminal, the calculation terminal performs the processes of acquiring calculation formula information, which is information on a calculation formula entered by the operation unit, performing calculation on the basis of the calculation formula information, displaying a result of the calculation on the display unit, and transmitting the acquired calculation formula information to the calculation assistance terminal; and the calculation assistance terminal performs the processes of determining whether the calculation being performed by the calculation terminal is to be assisted on the basis of the calculation formula information transmitted from the calculation terminal, and in the case of determining that the calculation is to be assisted, outputting calculation assistance information, which is information related to the assistance of calculation being performed by the calculation terminal.
Regarding claim 19, none of the cited references either alone or in combination teaches a calculation assistance method performed by a calculation assistance system including a calculation terminal and a calculation assistance terminal, wherein: with the calculation terminal in a state where a communication connection is established with the calculation assistance terminal, the calculation terminal acquires calculation formula information, which is information on a calculation formula entered by an operation unit of the calculation terminal, performs calculation on the basis of the calculation formula information, displays a result of the calculation on a display unit of the calculation terminal: the calculation terminal transmits the acquired calculation formula information to the calculation assistance terminal; the calculation assistance terminal determines whether the calculation being performed by the calculation terminal is to be assisted on the basis of the calculation formula information sequentially transmitted from the calculation terminal; and in the case of determining that the calculation is to be assisted, the calculation assistance terminal outputs calculation assistance information, which is information related to the assistance of calculation being performed by the calculation terminal.
Regarding claim 20, none of the cited references either alone or in combination teaches a storage medium containing a program executed by a calculation assistance system including a calculation terminal and a calculation assistance terminal, the program used for: causing the calculation terminal in a state where a communication connection is established with the calculation assistance terminal, to acquire calculation formula information, which is information on a calculation formula entered by an operation unit of the calculation terminal, to perform calculation on the basis of the calculation formula information, to display a result of the calculation on a display unit of the calculation terminal; causing the calculation terminal to transmit the acquired calculation formula information to the calculation assistance terminal; causing the calculation assistance terminal to determine whether the calculation being performed by the calculation terminal is to be assisted on the basis of the calculation formula information sequentially transmitted from the calculation terminal; and in the case of determining that the calculation is to be assisted, causing the calculation assistance terminal to output calculation assistance information, which is information related to the assistance of calculation being performed by the calculation terminal.
Claims 2-18 are considered allowable subject matter because they are dependent on claim 1.
US PGPUB 2017/0280272 to Tanaka discloses a calculation terminal that communicates with a remote communication device that enables a user to set up calculation modes and input variables. No mention of the calculation assistance terminal performs the processes of determining whether the calculation being performed by the calculation terminal is to be assisted on the basis of the calculation formula information transmitted from the calculation terminal, and in the case of determining that the calculation is to be assisted, outputting calculation assistance information, which is information related to the assistance of calculation being performed by the calculation terminal is present.
US PGPUB 2018/0032476 to Lopez discloses a calculator that enables entering mathematical operations, wherein a touchscreen display allows for selecting an assistance button for explaining a problem step-by-step. No mention of transmitting the acquired calculation formula information to the calculation assistance terminal is present.
US PGPUB 2012/0259939 to Wessman discloses coupling multiple calculators via a wired connection and transmitting a data set between the calculators. No mention of the calculation assistance terminal performs the processes of determining whether the calculation being performed by the calculation terminal is to be assisted on the basis of the calculation formula information transmitted from the calculation terminal is present.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2012/0162107 to Yoshizawa discloses a calculator with a touchscreen interface capable of recognizing and assisting in determining handwritten data inputs.
US PGPUB 2022/0343786 to Hood discloses a first computer that interfaces with an automated tutoring application software program capable of assisting with problem solving in real-time.
US PGPUB 2017/0011239 to Chapman discloses an NFC device that communicates and configures calculators to disable a set of calculator functions.
US PGPUB 2007/0239808 to Wostrel discloses an equation dispatch system that receives equation information from a user and transfers the equation information to an equation processing system that queues the equations and processes the equations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY Z WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1716. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 3 pm (Monday-Friday).
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, Henry Tsai can be reached at 571-272-4176. 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.
/H.Z.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2184
/HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights