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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action to Application Serial Number 18/686,883, filed on February 27, 2024. In response to Examiner’s Office Action of August 6, 2025, Applicant, on November 5, 2025, amended claims 1, 11 and 12; cancelled claim 6. Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35. U.S.C. § 101 rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been
considered and is insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed November 5, 2025.
On Pg. 8-9 of the Remarks, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, Applicant states the claims do not recite mental processes because the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, do not cover performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For instance, independent claims 1, 11, and 12, as amended, recite: "... based on the demand predicted on the basis of the result value, the operation value, and the existing predicted value, cause a user identity to initiate replacement of an original component with the component." These acts require action by a processor and cannot be practicably applied in the mind. Further, the claims do not recite any method of organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Additionally, the claims do not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. Thus, contrary to the Office's contention, the claims are eligible because they do not recite a judicial exception. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims under its broadest reasonable interpretation fall within the Abstract idea grouping of “Mental Processes” – evaluation. In the Step 2A analysis , Examiner found The claims primarily recite the additional element of using computer components to perform each step. of “acquirer”, “predictor”, “device”, and “storage medium” is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Examiner recommends expounding upon the practical use of claimed invention.
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 1-5 and 7- 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are directed to demand prediction for a component of a vehicle.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus for predicting demand for a component of a vehicle, Claim 11 recites a method for predicting demand for a component of a vehicle and Claim 12 recites an article of manufacture for predicting demand for a component of a vehicle, which include acquiring a result value of the demand for the component; acquiring an operation value associated with operation of vehicles using the component; acquiring an existing predicted value which is a predicted demand for the component; and predicting the demand on the basis of the result value, the operation value, and the existing predicted value, acquiring the result value for every predetermined period, the operation value for every predetermined period, and the existing predicted value for every predetermined period; determining a value obtained by decreasing the existing predicted value at a third time point later than a first time point as a predicted value on the basis of a difference between the operation value at the first time point and the operation value at a second time point earlier than the first time point when the operation value at the first time point tends to increase with respect to the operation value at the second time point, and wherein, during the predetermined period, the operation value tends to alternately increase and decrease and tendencies of increase and decrease between the operation value and the result value interlink with each other; and based on the demand predicted on the basis of the result value, the operation value, and the existing predicted value, causing a user identity to initiate replacement of an original component with the component..
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea grouping of “Mental Processes” – evaluation. The recitation of “acquirer”, “predictor”, “device”, and “storage medium”, provide nothing in the claim elements to preclude the step from being “Mental Processes”- evaluation. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims primarily recite the additional element of using computer components to perform each step. The “acquirer”, “predictor”, “device”, and “storage medium” is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fail to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field in prediction analysis.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “acquirer”, “predictor”, “device”, and “storage medium” is insufficient to amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With regards to receiving data and step 2B, it is M2106.05(d)- 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) and Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function(s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent Claims 2-5 and 7-10 recite the predictor predicts the demand on the basis of a relative relationship among an index acquired from the operation value, the existing predicted value, and an index acquired from the result value; the predictor determines whether the existing predicted value is to be employed as a predicted value or whether a value obtained by correcting the existing predicted value is to be employed as a predicted value on the basis of a relative relationship among an index acquired from a tendency of increase or decrease of the operation value, the existing predicted value, and an index acquired from the result value; the tendency of increase or decrease of the operation value in a time series is equal to or similar to a tendency of increase or decrease of the result value, and wherein the predictor predicts the demand on the basis of the tendency of increase or decrease of the operation value and the tendency of increase or decrease of the result value in the time series; wherein a tendency of fluctuation of the operation value in a time series is equal to or similar to a tendency of fluctuation of the result value, and wherein the predictor predicts the demand on the basis of the tendency of fluctuation of the operation value and the tendency of fluctuation of the result value in the time series; acquires the result value for every predetermined period, the operation value for every predetermined period, and the existing predicted value for every predetermined period, and wherein the predictor determines a value obtained by increasing the existing predicted value at a third time point later than a first time point as a predicted value on the basis of a difference between the operation value at the first time point and the operation value at a second time point earlier than the first time point when the operation value at the first time point tends to decrease with respect to the operation value at the second time point; acquires the result value for every predetermined period, the operation value for every predetermined period, and the existing predicted value for every predetermined period, wherein the predictor acquires an index based on the result value at a third time point later than a first time point on the basis of the result value at the first time point and the result value at a second time point earlier than the first time point, and wherein the predictor compares the existing predicted value at the third time point and a magnitude of an index based on the result value and determines whether the existing predicted value at the third time point is to be used as a predicted value at the third time or whether a value obtained by correcting the existing predicted value at the third time point on the basis of the operation value at the first time point and the operation value at the second time point is to be used as the predicted value at the third time point on the basis of the result of comparison; determines the existing predicted value at the third time point to be the predicted value at the third time point when the existing predicted value at the third time point is equal to or greater than the index based on the result value, and wherein the predictor determines a value obtained by correcting the existing predicted value at the third time point on the basis of the operation value at the first time point and the operation value at the second time point to be the predicted value at the third time point when the existing predicted value at the third time point is less than the index based on the result value; the operation value of vehicles is information indicating an actual travel state of the vehicles correlated with a predetermined area.; and further narrowing the abstract idea. These recited limitations in the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exceptions in Claims 1, 11 and 12. Regarding Claims 2-5 and 7-9, and the additional elements of “predictor” and “acquirer”, it is M2106.05(d)- 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).
Reasons Claims are Patentably Distinguishable from the Prior Art
Examiner analyzed Claims 1-5 and 7-12 in view of the prior art on record and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success as discussed below.
In regards to Claim 1 (similarly Claim 11, and Claim 12), the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest:
“… predict the demand on the basis of the result value, the operation value, and the existing predicted value, and wherein the acquirer acquires the result value for every predetermined period, the operation value for every predetermined period, and the existing predicted value for every predetermined period, wherein the predictor determines a value obtained by decreasing the existing predicted value at a third time point later than a first time point as a predicted value on the basis of a difference between the operation value at the first time point and the operation value at a second time point earlier than the first time point when the operation value at the first time point tends to increase with respect to the operation value at the second time point, and wherein, during the predetermined period, the operation value tends to alternately increase and decrease and tendencies of increase and decrease between the operation value and the result value interlink with each other; and based on the demand predicted on the basis of the result value, the operation value, and the existing predicted value, cause a user identity to initiate replacement of an original component with the component.”
Examiner finds that Tamaki et al. (US Publication No. 20150220875A1) teaches a system of managing the replacement timing interval of the maintenance part has: a machine working time information collection unit (107) that collects working time of each of a plurality of machines worked in target areas where machine operation conditions are similar to each other and memorizes the working time in a machine working time information memory unit; a maintenance-part supply history information collection unit (109) that collects an accumulated total number of the actual maintenance-part supply of the maintenance part for the target area and memorizes the accumulated total number in a maintenance-part supply history information memory unit; a demand forecast simulator unit (102, 103) that calculates past part replacement timing of each machine in the target area from a maintenance-part replacement timing interval for which a tentative value is previously determined and the working time memorized in the machine working time information memory unit and counts and outputs an accumulated total number of the past maintenance-part replacement demand of all the machines in time series; a maintenance-part demand-supply gap calculation unit (104) that calculates and outputs a maintenance-part demand-supply gap value which is the difference between the time-series accumulated total number of maintenance-part replacement demand output from the demand forecast simulator unit and the accumulated total number of maintenance-part supply memorized in the maintenance-part supply history information memory unit; and a maintenance-part replacement timing interval update unit (105) that calculates and outputs an optimum estimation value of the maintenance-part replacement timing interval which minimizes the maintenance-part demand-supply gap value output from the maintenance-part demand-supply gap calculation unit while changing the tentative value of the maintenance-part replacement timing interval. Then, the system has a feature that the future demand for the maintenance part is forecasted by using the optimum estimation value of the maintenance-part replacement timing interval output from the maintenance-part replacement timing interval update unit. (see fig. 2-4).
Ikeda,(WIPO No. 2016071993A1) teaches a vehicle consumables demand prediction system further includes the deterioration level of each consumable item recorded in the consumable item status storage unit, and the deterioration rate of each consumable item recorded in the deterioration degree trend storage unit, Based on information including the threshold of the degree of deterioration that needs to be replaced for each consumable, the location of the vehicle to which each consumable is attached, and the area where the maintenance shop provides services related to maintenance The maintenance factory includes a demand prediction unit that calculates the type and quantity of consumables that may require replacement because the degree of deterioration exceeds the threshold value within the predetermined period. (see pg. 2).
Hazui et al., (US Patent No. 20220187805A1) teaches a first predicted value of an operation index obtained by inputting a scheduled change value of a manipulation parameter of a plant meets an operation criterion, and whether a second predicted value of the operation index obtained by inputting a virtual change value with a greater change amount from a current value than the scheduled change value to a prediction model meets the operation criterion. If it is judged that the first predicted value and the second predicted value meet the operation criterion, the scheduled change value is output as a command value of the manipulation parameter (see Abstract).
Although Tamaki, Ikeda and Hazui teach prediction elements of the claim, none of the cited prior art, singularly or in combination, teach or fairly suggest, the combination of, the component prediction analysis .
Additionally, Examiner finds Shinoda et al. (U.S. PG Publication 20220215411) teaches An object is to predict a more accurate demand. A demand prediction device (1) includes an information storing unit (10) configured to store a plurality of demand prediction models, each of the demand prediction models being a prediction model configured to predict a demand in a demand state relating to demand and differing between each demand prediction model and a state prediction model that is a prediction model predicting a state degree that is a degree to which a designated timing is applicable to each demand state; and a demand predicting unit (15) configured to predict a demand on the basis of the demands predicted by the plurality of demand prediction models stored by the information storing unit (10) and the state degree predicted by the state prediction model stored by the information storing unit (10). (see Abstract).
The dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 because they depend on claim 1 that is determined to be eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Publication No. 20180121163A1 to Takeuchi et al.- Abstract-“ A first computation unit acquires a first variation coefficient representing characteristics of linear variation of first time-series data, and calculates a value of a start time point and a value of an end time point of the first time-series data. A second computation unit acquires a second variation coefficient representing characteristics of linear variation of second time-series data, and calculates a commencing time point in the second time-series data, and a completing time point obtained by adding a time width between the start time point and the end time point to the commencing time point. A difference integrated value is calculated between paired time points which are in the same positional relationship in a range from the start time point to the end time point and in a range from the commencing time point to the completing time point, without calculating values of intervening time points.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Chesiree Walton, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5219. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8 AM and 5 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson, can be reached at (571) 270-5396. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/CHESIREE A WALTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights