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 .
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 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 21-24 have been added, and are rejected.
Claims 9, 11, 16, and 19 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/23/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/23/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on page 7 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims utilize various sensors, multiple specified devices, and sensor diagnostics automatically identify the part needed to automatically notify and route the user to the part, solving a technical problem using complex technical solutions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claims recite various sensors, these sensors are any generic sensor and merely represents data gathering. The sensors are not any particular devices, and are used in a generic manner only to gather data to use in determining whether a part needs to be replaced. Identifying a part needed from data of the part does not represent a technical improvement or innovation. This merely automates the manual measuring and determining that would be performed by a technician. Determining nearby locations with inventory of the required part, and routing the user to the locations, also does not represent any technical undertaking, and are part of sales activities. The claims do not recite any particular manner in which the sensors are operating or any technical ability of the sensors, and they do not recite any technical changes in locating/navigating technology. The claims merely use generic technology to automate the abstract idea on a computing device to provide a general link to a computing environment.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/23/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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 15, 17-18, and 20 are 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 claims are directed to a signals per se.
Claims 15, 17-18, and 20 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 15, 17-18, and 20 are directed to a computer-readable media, but does not exclude signals or software. The specification paragraph [0052] defines the storage medium any type of long term, short term, volatile, nonvolatile, or other storage medium and is not limited to any particular type of memory or type of media which memory is stored, which would include any transitory medium and signals. As such, claims 15, 17-18, and 20 recite a transitory media, and includes ineligible subject matter that is not one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected because the claims are directed to signals, which is not one of the four statutory classes of invention. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to recite non-transitory media to overcome the rejection.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 and 21-24 are directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Claims 8, 10, and 12-14 are directed to a method, which is an apparatus. Claims 15, 17-18, and 20 are directed to a computer-readable media, which includes signals, but will be analyzed in steps 2A and 2B for the sake of compact prosecution. Therefore, claims 1-8, 10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20-24 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of determining parts to order and providing notifications when the user is close to a location with the part in stock:
detect usage of the appliance;
a parts algorithm to identify a part for replacement to determine the part needed for the appliance;
stores inventory information at a plurality of locations for a plurality of parts for the appliance, wherein the plurality of parts includes the part;
a routing algorithm to determine distance between the location of the user and the plurality of locations;
based on information from the location and the routing algorithm, an alerting module that triggers when the location of the user is within a determined distance from the plurality of locations having the part in stock.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for determining parts to order and providing notifications when the user is close to a location with the part in stock. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to parts to purchase, determining merchants with the part in stock, and providing a notification when the user is nearby one of the locations (see specification [0002-0003] disclosing the challenge of finding the ideal time to order and replace components), which is an advertising and marketing activity. Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 recites additional elements, such as:
a sensor at a first location;
within the appliance;
an inventory database;
a communications interface for the appliance to transmit data between the first location and the second location;
a trilateration sensor to track a location of a user device;
within the user device;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite a sensor and trilateration sensor, these elements are recited with a very high level of generality as merely gathering data. As disclosed in specification paragraph [0021], the sensor is any sensor to measure the usage of the appliance. Paragraph [0038] further discloses examples of the sensor, such as a general weight sensor or a flow meter, motion or optical sensors, and any sensor that can record information when the appliance is in use. Specification paragraph discloses the trilateration sensor can use any of GPS, fixed beacons, Russian or Chinese navigation sensors, and use any algorithm including least square method, iterative trilateration, and non-linear optimization techniques. It is evident that the claims merely apply any generic sensor to the abstract idea for data to use in the abstract idea, and the claims are not directed to any technology of the sensors. The inventory database merely represents the storage of information, and does not recite any new technology for the ability of a computer to store or retrieve data. The communications interface is also not disclosed with any particularity, the claims and specification not providing any further detail other than transmitting data between a first and second location. Additionally, the location of the algorithms do not represent any particular technical design, and the claims, nor the specification discusses any technical significance of the location of the algorithms. As such, it is evident that the communications interface is also any generic computing component to provide a general link to a computing environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), representative claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. The sensors are any generic sensor that represents extra-solution activity for mere data gathering for use in the abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 8 (method): Claim 8 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 8 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15 (computer-readable media): Although Claim 15 is not directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, claim 15 is addressed for the sake of compact prosecution. Claim 15 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 15 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7, 10, 12-14, 17-18, and 20-24 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the algorithm of determining parts to order and providing notifications when the user is close to a location with the part in stock, and do not recite any further additional elements. Thus, each of claims 2-7, 10, 12-14, 17-18, and 20-24 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-7, 10, 12-14, 17-18, and 20-24 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-7, 10, 12-14, 17-18, and 20-24 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 1. Further additional elements are also acknowledged (e.g. a GPS (claim 7); signal strength or propagation (claim 24)); however, the additional elements of claims 2-7, 10, 12-14, 17-18, and 20-24 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-7, 10, 12-14, 17-18, and 20-24 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-7, 10, 12-14, 17-18, and 20-24 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 15. Thus, dependent claims 2-7, 10, 12-14, 17-18, and 20-24 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
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 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen (US 20150170439 A1) in view of MacLaurin (US 20150134488 A1), and in further view of Gronsbell (US 20200234515 A1), and in further view of Isaacs (US 20240330983 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Chen discloses a system comprising:
a sensor at a first location to detect usage of the appliance; (Chen: [0039] – “The data retrieving tool 12 may also be embodied in a dongle which may be plugged into an onboard diagnostic port of the vehicle 26 to retrieve real time information from the vehicle”; Chen: [0007] – “Many vehicles are equipped with systems and sensors which help the vehicle owner anticipate and identify needed repairs. In this regard, most modern vehicles are equipped with an onboard electronic unit (ECU) which is in communication with several systems and sensors located on the vehicle”).
a parts algorithm using the sensor to determine a part needed for the appliance; (Chen: [0045] – “the tool 12 receives data and information from a vehicle 26 for analysis. The analysis may be conducted locally on the tool 12, or uploaded to the diagnostic server 14 either directly from the tool 12 or via the computing device 20, such as a mobile device, computer, etc. When the diagnostic database 14 determines that a repair is needed”).
an inventory database at a second location that stores inventory information at a plurality of locations for a plurality of parts for the appliance, wherein the plurality of parts includes the part; (Chen: [0056] – “an electronically searchable parts catalog or database 21 to determine if the selling retailer 18 carries the specific repair part needed (e.g., the repair part associated with the specific part number), if the repair part is in stock, as well as determining the price of the repair part. The search of the parts database 21 may be completed automatically without any input from the user. The repair server 19 may be in communication with the repair parts identification database 35 and an electronic catalogue 21 for effectuating the sale”).
a communications interface for the appliance to transmit data between the first location and the second location; (Chen: [0035] – “An external communication module 30 may be in communication with the storage module 28 to upload the retrieved vehicle operational data and information to a remote location. The external communication module 30 may be capable of communicating with a remote device (e.g., a smartphone 20, remote server, etc.) via wired or wireless communication. For wired communication, the external communication module 30 may be plug connectable to the remote device, such as to a USB port on a computer. For wireless communication, the external communications module 30 may be capable of short range wireless communication (e.g., Bluetooth.TM. or the like) to upload the vehicle operational data to a nearby electronic device, such as a smartphone 20, which may ultimately upload the vehicle operational data to a remote server”; Chen: [0056] – “The repair server 19 may be in communication with the repair parts identification database 35 and an electronic catalogue 21 for effectuating the sale”).
Chen does not explicitly teach a system comprising:
a parts algorithm within the appliance;
a trilateration sensor to track a location of a user device;
a routing algorithm to determine distance between the location of the user device and the plurality of locations;
based on information from the trilateration sensor and the routing algorithm within the user device, an alerting module of the user device that triggers when the location of the user device is within a determined distance from the plurality of locations having the part in stock.
Notably, however, Chen does disclose identifying retailers that carry the specific repair part and have it in stock (Chen: [0056]).
To that accord, MacLaurin does teach a system comprising:
a routing algorithm to determine distance between the location of the user device and the plurality of locations; MacLaurin: [0047] – “transmit map information to a user interface of the client device 106. In a local shopping embodiment, the user searches for items in a particular neighborhood or area. When an item of interest is found, the map module 412 places the item (or merchant location of the item) on a map that is transmitted to the user interface of the client device 106. The user may add other items from other merchants, or the consumer module 410 may recommend items from other merchant locations based on proximity and user affinities. The map module 412 may indicate a path to all the items along with distances between the merchant locations and the user's location”).
based on information from the location and the routing algorithm, an alerting module of the user device that triggers when the location of the user device is within a determined distance from the plurality of locations having the part in stock. (MacLaurin: [0078] – “if the user was searching for a particular item online, but did not purchase the item, and is now in a location within a predetermined distance to a nearby store that sells the same item, the shopping module 404 or consumer module 410 can transmit (or cause to be transmitted) a notification of the shopping opportunity (e.g., item information and an offer to purchase) to the client device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Chen disclosing the system of sensing operational data to determine repair parts and retailers carrying the repair parts with the determining of distances to locations with the item available and providing notifications when the user is within a predetermined distance near to the locations as taught by MacLaurin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to identify where the user can obtain the item based on various distances (walking, driving, delivery, etc.) (MacLaurin: [0034]).
Chen in view of MacLaurin does not explicitly teach a system comprising:
a parts algorithm within the appliance;
a trilateration sensor to track a location of a user device;
the trilateration sensor and the routing algorithm within the user device;
Notably, however, Chen does teach using the sensor data to determine that repair is needed (Chen: [0045]).
To that accord, Gronsbell does teach a parts algorithm within the appliance; (Gronsbell: [0124] – “the vehicle apparatus may be a part of the vehicle (e.g., software, firmware, and/or hardware residing on an onboard computing system of the vehicle capable of facilitating the functionalities described herein, which may include an API or other means to retrieve the relevant data)”; Gronsbell: [0113] – “a vehicle apparatus, that may be configured to detect and/or diagnose a vehicle malfunction in accordance with an example embodiment is provided. Apparatus 200 may be embodied by or associated with any of a variety of computing devices that include or are otherwise associated with a device configured for managing the maintenance of a vehicle. In some embodiments of the apparatus, the apparatus itself may be embodied or partially embodied as a mobile sensor, such as an On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) receiver. The computing device may be a fixed computing device. In some embodiments, portions of the vehicle apparatus 200, such as the processing circuitry 220 may be a part of the apparatus shown in FIG. 1. For example, a sensing circuitry 290 may provide a mobile phone with information that the processing circuitry 12 of the subscriber device 10 (e.g., a mobile phone), the vehicle apparatus 200, and/or one or more servers uses to determine a type of malfunction
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Chen in view of MacLaurin disclosing the system of sensing operational data to determine repair parts and retailers carrying the repair parts with the determining of distances to locations with the parts algorithm being within the appliance as taught by Gronsbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to keep the vehicle apparatus in electrical communication with the on-board vehicle computing system (Gronsbell: [0027]).
Chen in view of MacLaurin and Gronsbell does not explicitly teach a system comprising:
a trilateration sensor to track a location of a user device;
the trilateration sensor and the routing algorithm within the user device;
Notably, however, Chen does disclose identifying retailers that carry the specific repair part and have it in stock (Chen: [0056]), and MacLaurin does disclose identifying the location of the user with GPS (trilateration) (MacLaurin: [0034]).
To that accord, Isaacs does teach a system comprising:
a trilateration sensor to track a location of a user device; (Isaacs: [0059] – “The location reporting system 163 may comprise any location identification system, such as a global positioning system (GPS), cellular triangulation system, or the like, to identify the user's current location”).
the trilateration sensor and the routing algorithm within the user device; (Isaacs: [0059] - “The mapping application 164 may interface with the location reporting system 163 and the PSR agent 170 to present to the user a graphical representation of the user's current location and other establishments and points of interest near the user's current location, provides a user interface through which the user may interact with such a graphical representation, and which can be used to identify locations of establishments within a given proximity of the user's current location. In some cases, the mapping application 164 may be used to map a route from a user's current location, or a specified starting location, to a destination location, and in accordance with the illustrative embodiments, identify establishments and points of interest within a specified proximity of points along the predefined route.”; Isaacs: Fig. 1, #164 displaying the mapping application within the user computing device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Chen in view of MacLaurin disclosing the system of sensing operational data to determine repair parts and retailers carrying the repair parts with the determining of distances to locations with the routing algorithm being within the user device as taught by Isaacs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to integrate the location services with the application finding items near the user location (Isaacs: [0002-0003]).
Examiner Note:
Although the references of Gornsbell and Isaacs were cited to disclose the parts algorithm being within the appliance and routing algorithm being within the user device, such modification would have been an obvious matter of design choice in light of the system already disclosed in the combination.
Such modification would not have otherwise affected the invention of the combination of Chen and MacLaurin, and would have merely represented one of numerous locations of the algorithm, whether within the device or in a remote server, the skilled artisan would have found obvious for the purposes already discloses in the invention. Notably, Applicant has also failed to persuasively demonstrate the criticality of the locations of the algorithms.
Regarding Claim 3: Chen in view of MacLaurin, Gronsbell, and Isaacs discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Chen further discloses wherein the sensor contacts the inventory database when the appliance is getting faulty and/or the appliance needs the part for replacement. (Chen: [0037] – “The diagnostic processing may include interpretation of diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs). The processing module 34 may be able to generate a "repair-needed" signal, which may be relayed to a selling retailer”).
Regarding Claim 5: Chen in view of MacLaurin, Gronsbell, and Isaacs discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the logistics system is integrated with a plurality of online vendors that suggest an alternative purchase path to a user. Notably, however, Chen does disclose identifying retailers that carry the specific repair part and have it in stock (Chen: [0056]).
To that accord, MacLaurin does teach wherein the logistics system is integrated with a plurality of online vendors that suggest an alternative purchase path to a user. (MacLaurin: [0086] – “The shopping trip planning map may indicate a path to view or pick up all the items along with distances between the merchant locations and the user's location. In example embodiments, the map module 412 determines an optimal route or path for the user (e.g., based on distance, store hours, limited inventory), which the user can rearrange”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Chen disclosing the system of sensing operational data to determine repair parts and retailers carrying the repair parts with the determining of distances to locations with the alternative purchase path as taught by MacLaurin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have options for the available items (MacLaurin: [0051]).
Regarding Claim 21: Chen in view of MacLaurin, Gronsbell, and Isaacs discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Chen in view of MacLaurin and Gronsbell does not explicitly teach wherein the routing algorithm queries the inventory database to provide the plurality of locations having the part to the user device, wherein the user device receives a selection of a location of the plurality of locations from a user. Notably, however, Chen does disclose identifying retailers that carry the specific repair part and have it in stock (Chen: [0056]).
To that accord, Isaacs does teach wherein the routing algorithm queries the inventory database to provide the plurality of locations having the part to the user device, wherein the user device receives a selection of a location of the plurality of locations from a user. (Isaacs: [0096] – “The types of the establishments are matched to the types of establishments providing the item of interest as specified in the item listing data structure (step 530). For each matching establishment, i.e., an establishment having a type matching one of the types associated with the item of interest, additional notification criteria are evaluated (step 540). The evaluation of the notification criteria specifies whether or not a notification should be output to the user indicating that an item of interest on their item listing data structure is available from an establishment within the specified proximity (step 550). If a notification is to be generated, then the notification is generated and sent to the user's computing device for presentation to the user”; Isaacs: [0091] – “user selectable buttons 460-490 are provided to allow the user to indicate how the user wishes to proceed based on the item availability notification. For example, if the user wishes to accept the deviation of the user's current travel so that the user will go to the identified location to pick up the item of interest, then the user may select the Accept virtual button 460. If the user wishes to reject the notification and not deviate, then the user may select the Reject virtual button 470. If the user wishes to instead remove the item from the user's item listing, then the user may select the Remove virtual button”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Chen disclosing the system of sensing operational data to determine repair parts and retailers carrying the repair parts with the determining of distances to locations with the providing of the locations and a user selection as taught by Isaacs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to indicate how the user wishes to proceed and deviate from the current travel (Isaacs: [0091]).
Regarding Claim 22: Chen in view of MacLaurin, Gronsbell, and Isaacs discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Chen further discloses wherein the sensor resets on identification of a replaced part on the appliance. (Chen: [0054] – “when the system 10 identifies a most likely defect and/or a repair part or procedure associated with the most likely defect, the system 10 may take steps to quickly effectuate the repair. One particular aspect of the system 10 is that certain steps in the overall process may proceed automatically, without any input from the user, thereby reducing the burden on the user”). In summary, when a replaced part is in, the sensors would no longer detect a defect.
Regarding Claim 24: Chen in view of MacLaurin, Gronsbell, and Isaacs discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Chen in view of MacLaurin and Gronsbell does not explicitly teach wherein the trilateration sensor tracks the location of the user device based on signal strength and/or signal propagation. Notably, however, MacLaurin does disclose identifying the location of the user with GPS (trilateration) (MacLaurin: [0034]).
To that accord, Isaacs does teach wherein the trilateration sensor tracks the location of the user device based on signal strength and/or signal propagation. Examiner notes that Applicant recites and/or in the claim. (Isaacs: [0059] – “The location reporting system 163 may comprise any location identification system, such as a global positioning system (GPS), cellular triangulation system, or the like, to identify the user's current location”). Cellular triangulation determines location by measuring signals from at least three cell towers.
Regarding Claim 8 and 15: Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claims 8 and 15 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10 and 17: Claims 10 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claims 10 and 17 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 12: Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Chen (US 20150170439 A1), MacLaurin (US 20150134488 A1), Gronsbell (US 20200234515 A1), and Isaacs (US 20240330983 A1), in view of Davis (US 10,229,394 B1).
Regarding Claim 2: The combination of Chen, MacLaurin, Gronsbell, and Isaacs discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor that detects usage of the appliance is a usage time. Notably, however, Chen does disclose where various sensors collect data during operation (Chen: [0007]).
To that accord, Davis does teach wherein the sensor that detects usage of the appliance is a usage time. (Davis: col. 5, ln. 42-46 – “The smart home controller may analyze energy usage associated with the equipment; the amount of time that the equipment has been in use; the number of times that the equipment has cycled on and off”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Chen, MacLaurin, Gronsbell, and Isaacs disclosing system of sensing operational data to determine repair parts and retailers carrying the repair parts with the determining of distances to locations with the sensor detecting usage and usage time as taught by Davis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to compare various operational data with baseline data (Davis: col. 8, ln. 20-34).
Examiner Note:
Although the reference of Davis was cited to disclose the sensor detects a usage time of the appliance, such modification would have been an obvious matter of design choice in light of the system already disclosed in the combination.
Such modification would not have otherwise affected the invention of the combination of Chen, MacLaurin, and Rademaker, and would have merely represented one of numerous detection of sensors that the skilled artisan would have found obvious for the purposes already disclosed in the invention. Notably, Applicant has also failed to persuasively demonstrate the criticality of what data the sensor detects.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Chen (US 20150170439 A1), MacLaurin (US 20150134488 A1), Gronsbell (US 20200234515 A1), and Isaacs (US 20240330983 A1), in view of Balan (US 20210304522 A1).
Regarding Claim 4: The combination of Chen, MacLaurin, Gronsbell, and Isaacs discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the logistics system further provides recommendations to a user for purchasing the part for the appliance from an original equipment manufacturer instead of getting a replica. Notably, however, Chen does disclose matching the repair part with a universal part identification number (Chen: [0051]).
To that accord, Balan does teach wherein the logistics system further provides recommendations to a user for purchasing the part for the appliance from an original equipment manufacturer instead of getting a replica. (Balan: [0020] – “The documentation 230 may also include a report of compliance with original equipment manufacturer (OEM) requirements or specifications, For example, an OEM compliance report may include a list of which vehicle sensors or other vehicle components are recommended to be replaced with OEM replacement parts, and may include a list of which of those vehicle sensors or other vehicle components were replaced using OEM parts”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Chen, MacLaurin, and Rademaker disclosing system of sensing operational data to determine repair parts and retailers carrying the repair parts with the recommendation to purchase OEM parts as taught by Balan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure correct repair and calibration of parts (Balan: [0040]).
Regarding Claim 18: Claims 18 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Chen (US 20150170439 A1), MacLaurin (US 20150134488 A1), Gronsbell (US 20200234515 A1), and Isaacs (US 20240330983 A1), in view of Gulati (US 20210350437 A1).
Regarding Claim 6: The combination of Chen, MacLaurin, Gronsbell, and Isaacs discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein a user sets a frequency and a time for the notification on the application of the user device. Notably, however, MacLaurin does disclose transmitting a notification when the user location is within a predetermined distance to a nearby store that sells the item (MacLaurin: [0078]).
To that accord, Gulati does teach wherein a user sets a frequency and a time for the notification on the application of the user device. (Gulati: [0064] – “Monitoring by the best deal service may be turned ON/OFF via the sales notification application for specific products or a frequency or threshold of alerts may be set (e.g., alert provided monthly or daily or 10 total alerts within a time frame (e.g., day, month or week)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Chen, MacLaurin, Gronsbell, and Isaacs disclosing system of sensing operational data to determine repair parts and retailers carrying the repair parts with the setting of a frequency and time for notifications as taught by Gulati. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the user to opt-in to the service as they want (Gulati: [0064]).
Regarding Claim 13: Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Chen (US 20150170439 A1), MacLaurin (US 20150134488 A1), Gronsbell (US 20200234515 A1), and Isaacs (US 20240330983 A1), in view of Eramian (US 20150317708 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: The combination of Chen, MacLaurin, Gronsbell, and Isaacs discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the application displays on the user device a floor plan of a location of the plurality of the locations having the part, indicating a plurality of aisles and shelves, using a global positioning system (GPS). Notably, however, Chen does disclose identifying retailers that carry the specific repair part and have it in stock (Chen: [0056]), and MacLaurin does disclose identifying the location of the user with GPS (MacLaurin: [0034]).
To that accord, Eramian does teach wherein the application displays on the user device a floor plan of a location of the plurality of the locations having the part, indicating a plurality of aisles and shelves, using a global positioning system (GPS). (Eramian: [0036] – “service application 120 may display information for service location 130, such as an alert associated with a nearby item on a shopping list, a map, merchant store offerings, group-specific product or service locations, information desk locations, sales/coupons/rebates, or other general information. Additionally, service application 120 may use a location device and/or application of user device 110, such as a GPS device and application in addition to or in place of beacon communications, to locate users”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Chen, MacLaurin, Gronsbell, and Isaacs disclosing system of sensing operational data to determine repair parts and retailers carrying the repair parts with the floor plan of the location indicating the aisles and shelves and locations as taught by Eramian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to alert the user to the location of a specific item (Eramian: [0078]).
Regarding Claim 14 and 20: Claims 14 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, claims 14 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Chen (US 20150170439 A1), MacLaurin (US 20150134488 A1), Gronsbell (US 20200234515 A1), and Isaacs (US 20240330983 A1), in view of Johnston (US 20200334922 A1).
Regarding Claim 23: The combination of Chen, MacLaurin, Gronsbell, and Isaacs discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Chen further discloses determine inventory level, usage pattern, and/or material of the plurality of parts to identify the parts to be replaced. Examiner notes that Applicant recites and/or in the claim. (Chen: [0056] – “The process of completing the sale of the repair part may include establishing a link between the diagnostic server 14 and an electronically searchable parts catalog or database 21 to determine if the selling retailer 18 carries the specific repair part needed (e.g., the repair part associated with the specific part number), if the repair part is in stock, as well as determining the price of the repair part”).
The combination does not explicitly teach a machine learning algorithm. Notably, however, Chen does disclose determining the stock of the parts for repair (Chen: [0056]).
To that accord, Johnston does teach a machine learning algorithm. (Johnston: [0058] – “the wear model may implement a machine learning model that is trained with empirical data relating to a particular vehicle component (e.g., having a particular part brand, a part model, a part number, and/or the like). The empirical data may be collected by the data analytics platform from one or more vehicles that have the particular vehicle component installed (e.g., via user-supplied information, sensor data, and/or the like). For example, the data analytics platform may receive feedback from one or more drivers relating to the performance and/or the condition of the particular vehicle component over time. Additionally or alternatively, the data analytics platform may track the performance and/or the condition of the particular vehicle component based on the vehicle data. The machine learning model may be trained to receive the empirical data, and adjust the wear rate for the particular vehicle component to fit the empirical data. For example, the machine learning model may adjust an attribute used to estimate the wear rate, adjust a weighting factor applied to the attribute, incorporate an additional attribute, incorporate an additional weighting factor, and/or otherwise modify the wear model used for the particular vehicle component”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Chen, MacLaurin, Gronsbell, and Isaacs disclosing system of sensing operational data to determine repair parts and retailers carrying the repair parts with the machine learning as taught by Johnston. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to train and learn the algorithm with empirical data (Johnston: [0058]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 3/27/2026
Prosecution Insights