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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts the claims are not abstract because they are directed to a technical process executed by a computer system using AI technology to predict occurrence of a device failure. Predicting an occurrence of a device failure is an abstract idea as identified in the rejection. The process set forth in the claims recites steps to notify a destination of execution of a service associated with a service level guarantee and gathering device status information to detect a sign of failure based on a failure prediction model using machine learning. The process relates to commercial or legal interactions as the claims relates to service level agreements which are agreements in the form of contracts. Mere implementation by a computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant submits the use of machine learning to predict the occurrence of failure cannot be practically performed in the mind. Examiner rebuts this by asserting the failure is predicted by a computer implementing a mathematical algorithm which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Next Applicant points to the service level agreement (SLA) asserting the claimed invention automatically defines the service to be performed based on the SLA level and determines notification destination on the basis of the SLA level. Examiner notes that defining service to be performed and determining notification destination based on an SLA is an abstract process. Any computer implementation amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been updated to reflect the newly amended claim limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected under 35 USC 102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to a method, system, and computer program product. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The specification (p1) describes the invention in the context of contract service provision. More specifically, independent claim recite:
determine a notification destination of a service according to a first service level information that is associated with a device and a user of the device and defines a service to be performed by the user, the service to be performed by the user being different depending on the user, wherein the first service level information includes a service level guarantee regarding levels of the service agreed between a service provider and the user of the service;
notify the determined notification destination of execution of the service; and
receive device status information of the device and detect a sign of failure occurring in the device based on the device status information and a failure prediction model having data obtained by modeling conditions of multiple failure types prepared for multiple device types respectively for predicting an occurrence of each failure type
The claims include recitations of a process to notify a notification destination regarding service and further is described in the specification as related to contract service provisions (p1) and gathering status information to detect signs of failure based on a failure prediction model. As this relates to commercial/legal interactions including contracts, etc., this falls within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The nominal recitation of an information processing system and using machine learning (claims 1 and 20), a service management system, comprising a service target device, circuitry and using machine learning (claim 21), and a non-transitory computer-executable medium storing instructions which cause the information processing system to perform the method and using machine learning (claim 22) does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. An information processing system and using machine learning (claims 1 and 20), a service management system, comprising a service target device and circuitry and using machine learning (claim 21), and a non-transitory computer-executable medium storing instructions which cause the information processing system to perform the method and using machine learning (claim 22) amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, using machine learning, amounts to implementing an algorithm by a computer which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites the service is a second service different from a first service which is part of the abstract idea of claim 1. The system amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites acquire service level information and determine a notification destination to be notified of the second service which is part of the abstract idea of claim 1. The system and circuitry amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites determination steps that can be considered mental process as well as additional steps of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The system and circuitry amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites steps to determine the notification destination that performs a second service which are additional steps of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The system and circuitry amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claims 6-8 recite display of an execution log and execution rate relating to execution of the second service which are additional steps of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The system and circuitry amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claims 9 and 10 recite an evaluation step to propose a change of information based on a threshold which is an additional step of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The system and circuitry amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites display service level information in addition to execution rate which is additional steps of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The system and circuitry amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites an evaluation that results in recommending the second service which is additional steps of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The system and circuitry amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claim 13 recites change notification destination from the device to a service provider which is additional steps of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The system and circuitry amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claim 14 recites recommending changing the notification destination which is additional steps of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. The system and circuitry amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claim 15 recites display the execution rate which is an additional step of the abstract idea identified in claim 14. The system and circuitry amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claim 16 recites the user is an enterprise or person which is abstract as it applies to claim 1. The system and circuitry amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claims 17 and 18 recite use service level information to determine notification destination which is an additional step of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. Storage in an internal or external memory and the system and circuitry amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claim 19 recites service level information includes one of skill, location, hours, holiday, or calendar and determine destination based on that information which is an additional step of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. Storage in an internal or external memory and the system and circuitry amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
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) 1-6, 16-18, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coursimault et al, US 2011/0270771, in view of Yeung et al, US 2019/0279529.
As per claim 1, Coursimault et al discloses an information processing system comprising circuitry configured to:
determine a notification destination of a service according to first service level information that is associated with a device and a user of the device and defines a service to be performed by the user, the service to be performed by the user being different depending on the user ([0053-0054] – first level of escalation wherein a popup of message appears on the local user interface of the device for the user to engage in a self-help session; the service provided would depend on the issue at hand; [0039] - remote help manager receives a user query and, based on the user query, conducts a search of the knowledge base to retrieve responsive cases),
wherein the first service level information includes a service level guarantee regarding levels of service agreed between a service provider and the user of the service ([0002-0005] – service contract between customer and service provider to provide service for printers and multifunction devices wherein different levels of service are employed);
notify the determined notification destination of execution of the service ([0053-0054] – first level of escalation wherein a popup of message appears on the local user interface of the device).
Coursimault et al fails to explicitly disclose while Yeung et al discloses receive device status information of the device and detect a sign of failure occurring in the device based on the device status information and a failure prediction model having data obtained by modeling conditions of multiple failure types prepared for multiple device types respectively for predicting an occurrence of each failure type using machine learning, wherein the failure prediction model is used to predict the occurrence of each failure in the device based on the device status information and the failure prediction model using the machine learning ([0027] - processor generates predictive device failure data for subset of the multifunction peripherals in accordance with detected anomalies and service history data, identifies a device cluster within the subset of multifunction peripherals in accordance with the location data, and outputs the predictive device failure data, [0039-0041] - Device management system 404 provides device state information 408 for application of machine learning and analysis for predictive device failures by a suitable machine learning platform). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the device management system of Coursimault et al the ability to predict failures as taught by Yeung et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 1, wherein the service is a second service different from a first service, the first service being periodically executed, the second service being additionally executed ([0035] – session monitor determines whether interactions are associated with maintenance (periodically) or faults (additionally)).
As per claim 3, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 2, wherein the circuitry is configured to: acquire, from service notification destination information that associates a plurality of target modules each of which is to be subjected to the second service respectively with a plurality of pieces of second service level information each of which relates to a service difficulty level, a particular second service level information corresponding to a particular target module that is to be subjected to the second service ([0044] – device status and evaluation of difficulty at different service levels and escalates when needed including information and relevant interactions that have occurred); and
determine the notification destination to be notified of an occurrence of the second service, based on the particular second service level information and the first service level information ([0044, 0055-0058] – trigger conditions for escalation to second service level with notification message or popup on local UI of device).
As per claim 4, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 3, wherein the circuitry is configured to: determine a service provider of the service as the notification destination, in a case that the first service level information is less than the particular second service level information ([0053-0057] – remote support server message or popup on user interface is triggered to begin live remote support session with expert when self-help session is unsuccessful); and
determine the device as the notification destination, in a case that the first service level information is equal to or higher than the particular second service level information ([0055-0058] – if first service level difficulty rises then second service level for remote support is triggered).
As per claim 5, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 3, wherein in the service notification destination information, parts that the target includes are associated with the plurality of pieces of second service level information, respectively, and the circuitry is configured to determine the notification destination that performs a service to the particular target module that is to be subjected to the second service, based on a highest second service level information among the plurality of pieces of second service level information associated with the parts that the particular target module includes and the first service level information ([0057-0058] - remote support server can connect to the session manager, retrieve the data comprising the interactions that were monitored during the self-help session and stored and display them to the call center agent. Additional information from the first stage may also be available to the operator. This information is a benefit to the agent since the agent is able to have an understanding of what was done already by the user and will avoid wasting time questioning the user about it).
As per claim 6, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 3, wherein the circuitry is configured to display, based on service execution log information relating to execution of the second service, the service execution log information ([0057-0058] - remote support server can connect to the session manager, retrieve the data comprising the interactions that were monitored during the self-help session and stored and display them to the call center agent; [0088-0090] – logs of troubleshooting session).
As per claim 16, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 1, wherein the user is an enterprise or a person.
As per claim 17, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to use information to determine the notification destination of the service, the information including service level information stored in an internal memory or an external memory, the service level information is information regarding a level of service for which the user contracts as a degree of service quality assurance that the user desires, and the service level information is associated with the user ([0002-0005] – contract service providing escalation for assistance being provided to a higher level; [0024] - support levels can proceed incrementally, with the user progressing from one level to a higher level, the higher level being an escalation of the first one. The escalation may be triggered by the user, or automatically, when, for example, a lower support level, such as the self-help level, fails to resolve the problem).
As per claim 18, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 2, wherein the circuitry is configured to use information to determine the notification destination of the service, the information including service level information stored in an internal memory or an external memory, the service level information is associated with a target module that is to be subjected to the second service, and the circuitry is configured to determine the notification destination of the service based on the service level information associated with the target module ([0057-0058] - remote support server can connect to the session manager, retrieve the data comprising the interactions that were monitored during the self-help session and stored and display them to the call center agent. Additional information from the first stage may also be available to the operator. This information is a benefit to the agent since the agent is able to have an understanding of what was done already by the user and will avoid wasting time questioning the user about it).
As per claim 20, Coursimault et al discloses a notification method performed by an information processing system, the method comprising: determining, a notification destination of a service according to first service level information that is associated with a device and a user of the device and defines a service to be performed by the user, the service to be performed by the user being different depending on the user ([0053-0054] – first level of escalation wherein a popup of message appears on the local user interface of the device for the user to engage in a self-help session; the service provided would depend on the issue at hand; [0039] - remote help manager receives a user query and, based on the user query, conducts a search of the knowledge base to retrieve responsive cases),
wherein the first service level information includes a service level guarantee regarding levels of service agreed between a service provider and the user of the service ([0002-0005] – service contract between customer and service provider to provide service for printers and multifunction devices wherein different levels of service are employed);
notify the determined notification destination of execution of the service ([0053-0054] – first level of escalation wherein a popup of message appears on the local user interface of the device).
Coursimault et al fails to explicitly disclose while Yeung et al discloses receive device status information of the device and detect a sign of failure occurring in the device based on the device status information and a failure prediction model having data obtained by modeling conditions of multiple failure types prepared for multiple device types respectively for predicting an occurrence of each failure type using machine learning, wherein the failure prediction model is used to predict the occurrence of each failure in the device based on the device status information and the failure prediction model using the machine learning ([0027] - processor generates predictive device failure data for subset of the multifunction peripherals in accordance with detected anomalies and service history data, identifies a device cluster within the subset of multifunction peripherals in accordance with the location data, and outputs the predictive device failure data, [0039-0041] - Device management system 404 provides device state information 408 for application of machine learning and analysis for predictive device failures by a suitable machine learning platform). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the device management system of Coursimault et al the ability to predict failures as taught by Yeung et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 21, Coursimault et al discloses a service management system, comprising: a service target device; and circuitry [0028] configured to: determine a notification destination of a service according to first service level information that is associated with the service target device and a user of the service target device and defines a service to be performed by the user, the service to be performed by the user being different depending on the user; ([0053-0054] – first level of escalation wherein a popup of message appears on the local user interface of the device for the user to engage in a self-help session; the service provided would depend on the issue at hand; [0039] - remote help manager receives a user query and, based on the user query, conducts a search of the knowledge base to retrieve responsive cases),
wherein the first service level information includes a service level guarantee regarding levels of service agreed between a service provider and the user of the service ([0002-0005] – service contract between customer and service provider to provide service for printers and multifunction devices wherein different levels of service are employed);
notify the determined notification destination of execution of the service ([0053-0054] – first level of escalation wherein a popup of message appears on the local user interface of the device).
Coursimault et al fails to explicitly disclose while Yeung et al discloses receive device status information of the device and detect a sign of failure occurring in the device based on the device status information and a failure prediction model having data obtained by modeling conditions of multiple failure types prepared for multiple device types respectively for predicting an occurrence of each failure type using machine learning, wherein the failure prediction model is used to predict the occurrence of each failure in the device based on the device status information and the failure prediction model using the machine learning ([0027] - processor generates predictive device failure data for subset of the multifunction peripherals in accordance with detected anomalies and service history data, identifies a device cluster within the subset of multifunction peripherals in accordance with the location data, and outputs the predictive device failure data, [0039-0041] - Device management system 404 provides device state information 408 for application of machine learning and analysis for predictive device failures by a suitable machine learning platform). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the device management system of Coursimault et al the ability to predict failures as taught by Yeung et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 22, Coursimault et al discloses a non-transitory computer-executable medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by an information processing system [0062] cause the information processing system to perform a notification method comprising: determining a notification destination of a service according to first service level information that is associated with a device and a user of the device and defines a service to be performed by the user, the service to be performed by the user being different depending on the user; ([0053-0054] – first level of escalation wherein a popup of message appears on the local user interface of the device for the user to engage in a self-help session; the service provided would depend on the issue at hand; [0039] - remote help manager receives a user query and, based on the user query, conducts a search of the knowledge base to retrieve responsive cases),
wherein the first service level information includes a service level guarantee regarding levels of service agreed between a service provider and the user of the service ([0002-0005] – service contract between customer and service provider to provide service for printers and multifunction devices wherein different levels of service are employed);
notify the determined notification destination of execution of the service ([0053-0054] – first level of escalation wherein a popup of message appears on the local user interface of the device).
Coursimault et al fails to explicitly disclose while Yeung et al discloses receive device status information of the device and detect a sign of failure occurring in the device based on the device status information and a failure prediction model having data obtained by modeling conditions of multiple failure types prepared for multiple device types respectively for predicting an occurrence of each failure type using machine learning, wherein the failure prediction model is used to predict the occurrence of each failure in the device based on the device status information and the failure prediction model using the machine learning ([0027] - processor generates predictive device failure data for subset of the multifunction peripherals in accordance with detected anomalies and service history data, identifies a device cluster within the subset of multifunction peripherals in accordance with the location data, and outputs the predictive device failure data, [0039-0041] - Device management system 404 provides device state information 408 for application of machine learning and analysis for predictive device failures by a suitable machine learning platform). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the device management system of Coursimault et al the ability to predict failures as taught by Yeung et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
14. Claim(s) 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coursimault et al, US 2011/0270771, and Yeung et al, US 2019/0278529, in view of Kamprath, US 2009/0309707.
As per claim 7, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 6, wherein the circuitry is configured to display an execution rate but fails to explicitly disclose the rate calculated based on a number of executed second services among the second service recorded in the service execution log information ([0057-0058] - remote support server can connect to the session manager, retrieve the data comprising the interactions that were monitored during the self-help session and stored and display them to the call center agent; [0088-0090] – logs of troubleshooting session). Kamprath discloses device specific maintenance rate statistics of a printing device based on unscheduled maintenance counts ([0042-0045] - keeps track of how often maintenance service calls have been performed in the past). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Coursimault et al the ability to display an execution rate as taught by Kamprath since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 7, wherein the plurality of pieces of second service level information is associated with the second service in the service execution log information ([0057-0058] - remote support server can connect to the session manager, retrieve the data comprising the interactions that were monitored during the self-help session and stored and display them to the call center agent; [0088-0090] – logs of troubleshooting session), but fails to explicitly disclose, while Kamprath discloses display the execution rate for each of the plurality of pieces of second service level information. ([0042-0045] - keeps track of how often maintenance service calls have been performed in the past). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Coursimault et al the ability to display an execution rate as taught by Kamprath since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 9, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 8, wherein the circuitry is configured to propose a change of the first service level information in a case that one or more of execution rates calculated respectively for the plurality of pieces of second service level information are less than a threshold value ([0087-0090] – based on execution rates of service, escalation may be triggered by a threshold being met which escalates to a second service level).
As per claim 10, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 9, wherein in a case that one or more of the execution rates calculated respectively for the plurality of pieces of second service level information are less than the threshold value, the circuitry is configured to propose the change of the first service level information corresponding to a particular second service level information having a highest execution rate among the plurality of pieces of second service level information having the execution rate equal to or more than the threshold value ([0087-0090] – based on execution rates of service, escalation may be triggered by a threshold being met which escalates to a second service level).
As per claim 11, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 10, wherein the first service level information differs depending on the device, and the circuitry is configured to display the first service level information for each device in addition to the execution rate ([0035] – session monitor determines whether interactions are associated with maintenance (periodically) or faults (additionally); ([0057-0058] - remote support server can connect to the session manager, retrieve the data comprising the interactions that were monitored during the self-help session and stored and display them to the call center agent; [0088-0090] – logs of troubleshooting session)).
As per claim 12, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 10, wherein in a case that one or more of the execution rates calculated respectively for the plurality of pieces of second service level information is less than the threshold value and in a case that the first service level information is the lowest, the circuitry is configured to propose recommending execution of the second service ([0087-0090] – based on execution rates of service, escalation may be triggered by a threshold being met which escalates to a second service level).
As per claim 13, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 7, wherein in a case that the circuitry notifies the device of the second service, the circuitry is configured to display a display component that receives a request to change the notification destination from the device to a service provider of the service on a screen that notifies the second service ([0056-0059] – escalation to remote support a message or popup on the user interface).
As per claim 14, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 13, wherein in a case that the circuitry notifies the device of the second service and in a case that the execution rate of the particular target module that is to be subjected to the second service is less than a threshold value, the circuitry is configured to display a comment recommending changing the notification destination from the device to the service provider of the service ([0056-0059] – escalation to remote support a message or popup on the user interface). .
As per claim 15, Coursimault et al discloses the information processing system of claim 14, wherein the circuitry is configured to display the execution rate of the particular target module that is to be subjected to the second service ([0035] – session monitor determines whether interactions are associated with maintenance (periodically) or faults (additionally); ([0057-0058] - remote support server can connect to the session manager, retrieve the data comprising the interactions that were monitored during the self-help session and stored and display them to the call center agent; [0088-0090] – logs of troubleshooting session)).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coursimault et al, US 2011/0270771, and Yeung et al, US 2019/0278529, in view of Ingman et al, US 20090024437.
As per claim 19, Coursimault et al discloses notification destination of remote service and/or service call requests, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the service level information includes at least one of a skill level of a person in charge of a service work who performs the service, a current location, business hours, holidays, or a holiday calendar, and the circuitry is configured to determine the notification destination of the service, based on at least one of the skill level of the person in charge of a service work who performs the service, the current location, the business hours, the holidays, or the holiday calendar, which are associated with the service level information for which the user contracts for. Ingman et al discloses a service providing system wherein the system notifies and reallocates technicians based on factors such as location, skills, schedule and availability of technicians [0024, 0037]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Coursimault et al the ability to allocate a technician based on factors as taught by Ingman et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent art is listed in the PTO-892.
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 JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625