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 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: “first acquisition part for acquiring …”, “second acquisition part for acquiring …”, “determination part for determining …”, and “output part for outputting …” in claims 19 and 20.
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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of the USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), which is a two-prong inquiry. In prong 1, it must be determined whether the claim recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon, and if so, in prong 2, it must be determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea in step 2a, it must additionally be determined in step 2b whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. MPEP §2106.04.
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method of recommending devices to a user, as in independent claim 1 and in the claims that depend therefrom. Such methods fall under the statutory category of “process”. Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
Step 2A, prong 1. The invention is directed to a method of recommending devices to a user, which is a sales method and, hence, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. When considering the limitations individually and as a whole the limitations directed to the abstract idea are:
“An information output method, …, comprising”:
“acquiring first information on a first device installed in a facility employed by a user”;
“acquiring second information on a plurality of second devices installed outside the facility, the second information including installation position information indicative of a position at which each of the second devices is installed in an outside of the facility”;
“determining, on the basis of the first information and the second information, one or more recommendation devices to replace the first device among the second devices”; and
“outputting recommendation information concerning recommendation of the one or more recommendation devices to the user”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. a generic computing system performing generic functions including generic processing of data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. MPEP §2106.04. Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the Mayo framework, the examiner holds that the claims are directed to concepts identified as abstract.
STEP 2B. Because the claims include one or more abstract ideas, the examiner now proceeds to Step 2B of the analysis, in which the examiner considers if the claims include individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the "computer itself," "another technology," the "technical field," or significantly more than what is "well-understood, routine, or conventional" in the related arts.
The instant application includes in claim 1 additional limitations to those deemed to be abstract ideas. When taken individually, these limitations are
“by a computer”.
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to above mentioned abstract idea. Technical functions such as sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology. The individual limitations are recited at a high level and do not provide any specific technology or techniques to perform the functions claimed.
Looking to MPEP §2106.05(d), based on court decisions well understood, routine and conventional computer functions or mere instruction and/or insignificant activity have been identified to include: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321,120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TU Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); O/P Techs., /no., 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPG2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink," (emphasis added)}; Insignificant intermediate or post solution activity -See Bilski v. Kappos, 581 U.S. 593, 611 -12, 95 USPQ2d 1001,1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); In Bilski referring to Flook, where Flook determined that an insignificant post-solution activity does not makes an otherwise patent ineligible claim patent eligible. In Bilski, the court added to Flook that pre-solution (such as data gathering) and insignificant step in the middle of a process (such as receiving user input) to be equally ineffective. The specification and Claim does not provide any specific process with respect to the display output that would transform the function beyond what is well understood. Like as found in Electric Power Group, Bilski, the technical process to implement the input and display functions are conventional and well understood.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add "significantly more" by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to the abstract idea. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using well-understood and conventional functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine functions for authorizing the timing of a payment and to activate a display screen based on a trigger or camera functions that could then be pointed to as being "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, examiner was not able to identify any "unconventional" steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts.
Further, note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computing devices. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device and require no more than a generic computing devices to perform generic functions.
CONCLUSION. It is therefore determined that the instant application not only represents an abstract idea identified as such based on criteria defined by the Courts and on USPTO examination guidelines, but also lacks the capability to bring about "Improvements to another technology or technical field" (Alice), bring about "Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself" (Alice), "Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" (Bilski), "Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing" (Diehr), "Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field" (Mayo), "Add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (Mayo), or contain "Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" (Alice), transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (McRO), or limitations directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software (Enfish).
Dependent claims 2-18, which impose additional limitations, also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-18, these dependent claims have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. The dependent claims have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary." Content Extraction &. Transmission LLC v, Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, applicant is invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Claim 20 recites a “computer readable storage medium”, which is a generic element. Claims 19 and 20 are otherwise similar to claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0373321 A1 (hereinafter “Plaza”).
With respect to claims 1, 19, and 20, Plaza discloses
“An information output method, by a computer, comprising”: Plaza, abstract;
“acquiring first information on a first device installed in a facility employed by a user”; Plaza ¶¶ 0035, 0036 (usage information is acquired and stored relating to a particular device employed by a user);
“acquiring second information on a plurality of second devices installed outside the facility, the second information including installation position information indicative of a position at which each of the second devices is installed in an outside of the facility”; Plaza ¶¶ 0029, 0035, 0036 (usage information is acquired and stored relating to other devices employed by other users in other facilities);
“determining, on the basis of the first information and the second information, one or more recommendation devices to replace the first device among the second devices”; Plaza ¶¶ 0078-0082 (when device reaches end of predetermined lifespan, user is notified of one or more recommended replacement devices); and
“outputting recommendation information concerning recommendation of the one or more recommendation devices to the user”. Plaza ¶¶ 0078-0082 (when device reaches end of predetermined lifespan, user is notified of one or more recommended replacement devices)
With respect to claim 2, Plaza discloses
“wherein the first information includes a manufacturing date, a usage period, and a longevity of
the first device, the second information includes the manufacturing date of each of the second devices,
and in the determination of the one or more recommendation devices, in a case that a ratio of the usage period of the first device to the longevity of the first device is larger than a predetermined ratio, one or more second devices with a manufacturing date newer than the manufacturing date of the first device are determined among the second devices as the one or more recommendation devices”. Plaza ¶¶ 0030, 0036, 0078, 0079 (useful life can be based on one or more of chronological age and various usage statistics; when device reaches end of useful life, one or more replacement devices are recommended).
With respect to claim 6, Plaza discloses
“wherein in the determination of the one or more recommendation devices, information indicative of a rule that is set on the basis of the first information and the second information is acquired, and the one or more recommendation devices are determined among the second devices according to the rule”. Plaza ¶ 0071 (rule is to replace device a at end of predetermined useful life).
With respect to claim 7, Plaza discloses
“wherein in the determination of the one or more recommendation devices, a setting of a rule by the user based on the first information and the second information is accepted, and the one or more recommendation devices are determined among the second devices according to the rule”. Plaza ¶¶ 0071, 0078-0082 (one or more recommended devices are determined at end of predetermined useful life of a device).
With respect to claim 13, Plaza discloses
“wherein in the output of the recommendation information, the recommendation information is further output periodically”. Plaza ¶¶ 0071, 0078-0082 (recommendation information is outputted each time a report is run).
With respect to claim 14, Plaza discloses
“wherein in the output of the recommendation information, an input of information that the user requires an output of the recommendation information is further accepted, and the recommendation information is further output when the information concerning the requirement of the output of the recommendation information is accepted”. Plaza ¶¶ 0071, 0078-0082 (user can supply input to require emailed output).
With respect to claim 17, Plaza discloses
“wherein the first information includes a usage period of the first device”, Plaza ¶¶ 0035, 0036 (usage information is acquired and stored relating to a particular device employed by a user);
“the second information includes an installation position of each of the second devices”, Plaza ¶¶ 0029, 0035, 0036 (usage information is acquired and stored relating to other devices employed by other users in other facilities; location information of each device, such as particular building, floor, room, or department is acquired and stored);
“movement history information indicative of a history of a current position of the user and log information indicative of an operational state of each of the second devices are further acquired”, Plaza ¶¶ 0029, 0035, 0036 (location information is acquired and stored at regular intervals; one skilled in the art would understand that the locations over time can be outputted to illustrate movement of a device); and
“information on at least one of use and purchase by the user of each recommendation device in the group of recommendation devices recommended by the output recommendation information is further stored with reference to the first information, the second information, the movement history information, and the log information”. Plaza ¶¶ 0078-0082 (recommendations are stored, such as in emails).
With respect to claim 18, Plaza discloses
“wherein the first information includes a usage period of the first device”, Plaza ¶¶ 0035, 0036 (usage information is acquired and stored relating to a particular device employed by a user);
“the second information includes information on an installation position and purchase of each of the second devices”, Plaza ¶¶ 0029, 0035, 0036 (usage information is acquired and stored relating to other devices employed by other users in other facilities; location information of each device, such as particular building, floor, room, or department is acquired and stored);
“movement history information indicative of a history of a current position of the user and log information indicative of an operational state of each of the second devices are further acquired”, Plaza ¶¶ 0029, 0035, 0036 (location information is acquired and stored at regular intervals; one skilled in the art would understand that the locations over time can be outputted to illustrate movement of a device); and
“when it is detected with reference to the first information, the second information, the movement history information, and the log information that the user uses one recommendation device in the group of recommendation devices recommended by the output recommendation information, information on purchase of the one recommendation device is further output”. Plaza ¶¶ 0078-0082 (recommendations are outputted).
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.
Claims 3-5, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plaza in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0195297 A1 (hereinafter “Abuelsaad”).
With respect to claim 3, Plaza discloses storing information regarding the functions each device possesses. Plaza ¶ 0034 (devices are recommended based on having required functions). Plaza does not explicitly disclose, however, recommending a second device that possesses a function a first device does not possess. Abuelsaad discloses
“wherein the first information concerns a group of functions which the first device has, the second information concerns a group of functions which each of the second devices has, and in the determination of the one or more recommendation devices, one or more second devices having a function that the first device does not have are determined among the second devices as the one or more recommendation devices”. Abuelsaad ¶¶ 0095, 0107-0109 (devices are recommended based on importance of available functions in potential devices based on past user use of functions and other factors such as user input relating to lifestyle changes).
Both Plaza and Abuelsaad relate to recommending devices. Plaza, abstract; Abuelsaad, abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the upgrade recommendation feature as taught by Abuelsaad in the method of Plaza with the motivation of selecting the most appropriate device for a particular user when an old device is replaced. Abuelsaad ¶¶ 0002-0004.
With respect to claim 4, Abuelsaad discloses
“wherein the first information concerns a group of functions which the first device has, the second information concerns a group of functions which each of the second devices has and one or more distinctive functions which each of the second devices has, and in the determination of the one or more recommendation devices, one or more second devices having a function that is included in the one or more distinctive functions and that the first device does not have are determined among the second devices as the one or more recommendation devices”. Abuelsaad ¶¶ 0095, 0107-0109 (devices are recommended based on importance of available functions in potential devices based on past user use of functions and other factors such as user input relating to lifestyle changes).
With respect to claim 5, Abuelsaad discloses
“wherein the first information concerns a group of functions which the first device has, and an attribute of each of one or more users that employs the facility, the second information concerns a group of functions which each of the second devices has, and a group of useful functions which each of the second devices has and are useful for an attribute of each of the one or more users, and in the determination of the one or more recommendation devices, at least one second device having a function that is included in the group of useful functions useful for the attribute of each of the one or more users is determined among the one or more second devices as the one or more recommendation devices”. Abuelsaad ¶¶ 0095, 0107-0109 (devices are recommended based on importance of available functions in potential devices based on past user use of functions and other factors such as user input relating to lifestyle changes; attributes include usage patterns of various functions of particular users).
With respect to claim 10, Abuelsaad discloses
“wherein in the output of the recommendation information, history information indicative of a history of usage of the first device by the user is further acquired, and when it is detected with reference to the history information that use frequency of the first device by the user varies a certain degree or more during a latest first period than during a second period before the first period, the recommendation information is further output”. Abuelsaad ¶¶ 0095, 0107-0109 (devices are recommended based on importance of available functions in part based on changing user usage patterns).
With respect to claim 15, Abuelsaad discloses
“wherein in the output of the recommendation information, information indicative of a group of functions that are recommendation objects of each of the group of recommendation devices recommended by the recommendation information is further acquired, and information concerning recommendation of the group of functions that are the recommendation objects is further output together with the recommendation information”. Abuelsaad ¶¶ 0095, 0107-0109 (devices are recommended based on importance of available functions in part based on changing user usage patterns).
With respect to claim 16, Abuelsaad discloses
“wherein in the output of the recommendation information, information indicative of a group of relevant products relevant to each of the group of recommendation devices recommended by the recommendation information is further acquired, and information concerning recommendation of the group of relevant products is further output together with the recommendation information”. Abuelsaad ¶¶ 0049-0055 (software and hardware components that may be required are considered and form part of output).
Claims 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plaza in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0280459 A1 (hereinafter “Ogrinz”).
With respect to claim 8, Plaza does not explicitly disclose the distance from a recommended device. Ogrinz discloses
“wherein in the output of the recommendation information, when it is detected that a current position of the user is within a predetermined distance from an installation position of at least one recommendation device of the one or more recommendation devices, information concerning recommendation of the at least one recommendation device is output as the recommendation information”. Ogrinz ¶ 0003 (replacement device is recommend based on proximity).
Both Plaza and Ogrinz relate to recommending devices. Plaza, abstract; Ogrinz, abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the replacement proximity feature as taught by Ogrinz in the method of Plaza with the motivation of enhancing replacement of devices with minimal downtime in a convenient manner. Ogrinz ¶¶ 0025-0028.
With respect to claim 9, Ogrinz discloses
“wherein in the output of the recommendation information, information indicative of a position of a group of facilities for encouraging a replacement of a device is further acquired, and when it is detected that a current position of the user is within a predetermined first distance from at least one facility in the group of facilities, information concerning recommendation of at least one recommendation device among the one or more recommendation devices that is installed within a predetermined second distance from the at least one facility is further output as the recommendation information”. Ogrinz ¶ 0003 (replacement device is recommend based on proximity).
With respect to claim 11, Ogrinz discloses
“wherein in the output of the recommendation information, a notification indicating that the user has required an external device to provide information on at least one recommendation device among the one or more recommendation devices is further accepted, and information concerning recommendation of the at least one recommendation device is further output as the recommendation information when the notification is accepted”. Ogrinz ¶ 0003 (information is provided by networked smart devices).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plaza in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0370717 A1 (hereinafter “Diaz”).
With respect to claim 12, Plaza does not explicitly disclose recommending based on price. Diaz discloses
“wherein in the output of the recommendation information, price information indicative of a price of the one or more recommendation devices is further acquired periodically, and when at least one recommendation device among the one or more recommendation devices is detected to involve a reduction of a predetermined rate or more in the price indicated by the price information to the price indicated by previously acquired price information, information concerning recommendation of the at least one recommendation device is further output as the recommendation information”. Diaz ¶ 0013 (replacement devices are recommended based on total cost of ownership, including price).
Both Plaza and Diaz relate to recommending devices. Plaza, abstract; Diaz, abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the total cost of ownership feature as taught by Diaz in the method of Plaza with the motivation of reducing the cost of replacement devices. Diaz ¶¶ 0009-0011.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0235290 A1 (hereinafter “Weber”) discloses recommending replacement devices. Weber, abstract.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0251807 A1 (hereinafter “Rada”) discloses recommending replacement devices. Rada, abstract.
IBM, "System and Method of Energy Conservation via Device Monitoring and Intelligent Presentation of Upgrade and Replacement Options", IP.com Prior Art Database Technical Disclosure, IPCOM000184904D, July 4, 2009 (hereinafter “IBM”) discloses recommending replacement devices. IBM, page 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN D CIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-6:30.
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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
ETHAN D. CIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/ETHAN D CIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688