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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
Claim 1:
acquiring a history related to a first product that has started to be used by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the first product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the first product; and
receiving an input related to the first product from a user
diagnosing the first product based on the acquired history
determining a module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the first product based on a diagnosis result
removing the module to be removed from the first product that has started to be used; and
attaching a new module to the first product, the new module being a substitute for the module to be removed,
the new module being a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed, and
the new module being a module completed by performing article circulation of at least one of the following:
the module to be removed related to the first product; and
a module removed from a second product different from the first product
Claim 11:
generate, after start of use of a product including a plurality of modules, data for supporting by replacement of a module to be removed included in the product with a new module having the following characteristics:
a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed; and
a module completed by article circulation of a module removed from a first product or another product
the generating the data for supporting the replacement of the module to be removed including:
acquiring a history related to the product by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the product; and
receiving an input related to the product form a user;
diagnosing the product based on the acquired history; and
determining the module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the product based on a diagnosis result
Claim 12:
the circulation support includes, after start of use of the product including a plurality of modules, replacing a module to be removed included in a product with a new module having the following characteristics:
a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed; and
module completed by article circulation of a module removed from the first product or from a second product that is another product different form the first product, and
acquire a history related to the first product by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the first product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the first product; and
receiving an input related to the first product from a user;
diagnose the first product based on the acquired history;
determine the module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the first product based on a diagnosis result;
calculate, for each of attachment candidate modules, a degree of value improvement of a predetermined product value item assuming a case of attachment to the first product based on the following:
a value of the predetermined product value item of the first product;
a specification or a value of a predetermined value item of the plurality of modules that are the attachment candidates; and
the acquired history; and
determine a module suitable for the new module from the attachment candidate modules based on the degree of value improvement,
the attachment candidate module being a module completed by article circulation, that is a plurality of attachment candidates of a same type as the new module
Claim 13:
the circulation support includes replacing a module to be removed included in a product with a new module having the following characteristics after start of use of the product, the product including a plurality of modules:
a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed; and
a module completed by article circulation of a module removed from a first product or another product, and
receive a product value item to be improved;
determine a type of a module related to the received product value item;
create a plurality of pairs of a removal candidate module and an attachment candidate module based on the type of the module determined to be related to the received product value item, wherein the removal candidate module is a module to be a candidate to be removed from the first product, and the attachment candidate module is a module completed by the article circulation to be a candidate to be attached to the first product;
calculate, for each of the created pairs, a degree of value improvement of a predetermined product value item assuming a case where the removal candidate module is removed from the first product and the attachment candidate module is attached;
degree of value improvement and a diagnosis result; and
determine the new module from the attachment candidate module based on the degree of value improvement, the diagnosis result determined by
acquiring a history related to a first product by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the first product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the first product; and
receiving an input related to the first product from a user
diagnosing the first product based on the acquired history
determining a module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the first product based on a diagnosis result
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of product evaluation to determine recycling options, which corresponds to “Mental Processes”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, and “Mathematical Concepts” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, e.g.:
Claim 1 (“Mental Processes”; “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”) – The claimed invention encompasses a human collecting and evaluating information, in their mind and/or by reviewing written information, to determine the condition, repairability, or the like of a product and assess the value that recycling a product would provide and, as will be discussed below, taking the necessary steps to recycle the product, wherein later dependent claims, e.g., claims 4, 8, 10, 23 further establish that the process can be used for a financial transaction, i.e. renting the recycled product.
Claim 11 (“Mental Processes”) – The claimed invention encompasses a human in their mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper, generating or writing down information to support the replacement of a component having certain characteristics, as well as, a human collecting and evaluating information, in their mind and/or by reviewing written information, to determine the condition, repairability, or the like of a product.
Claim 12 (“Mental Processes”; “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”; “Mathematical Concepts”) – The claimed invention encompasses a human collecting and evaluating information, in their mind and/or by reviewing written information, to assess that value that recycling a product would provide and, as will be discussed below, taking the necessary steps to recycle the product associated with a rental transaction. The claimed invention further recites calculating a degree of value improvement to assess whether recycling actions should or are worth taking, as well as the collection and comparison of information to assess or determine the condition, value, and replacement parts.
Claim 13 (“Mental Processes”; “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”; “Mathematical Concepts”) – The claimed invention encompasses a human collecting and evaluating information, in their mind and/or by reviewing written information, to determine the condition, repairability, or the like of a product and assess the value that recycling a product would provide and, as will be discussed below, taking the necessary steps to recycle the product associated with a rental transaction. The claimed invention further recites calculating a degree of value improvement to assess whether recycling actions should or are worth taking, as well as the collection and comparison of information to assess or determine the condition, value, and replacement parts.
The limitations of:
Claim 1:
acquiring a history related to a first product that has started to be used by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the first product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the first product; and
receiving an input related to the first product from a user
diagnosing the first product based on the acquired history
determining a module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the first product based on a diagnosis result
removing the module to be removed from the first product that has started to be used; and
attaching a new module to the first product, the new module being a substitute for the module to be removed,
the new module being a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed, and
the new module being a module completed by performing article circulation of at least one of the following:
the module to be removed related to the first product; and
a module removed from a second product different from the first product
Claim 11:
generate, after start of use of a product including a plurality of modules, data for supporting by replacement of a module to be removed included in the product with a new module having the following characteristics:
a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed; and
a module completed by article circulation of a module removed from a first product or another product
the generating the data for supporting the replacement of the module to be removed including:
acquiring a history related to the product by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the product; and
receiving an input related to the product form a user;
diagnosing the product based on the acquired history; and
determining the module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the product based on a diagnosis result
Claim 12:
the circulation support includes, after start of use of the product including a plurality of modules, replacing a module to be removed included in a product with a new module having the following characteristics:
a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed; and
module completed by article circulation of a module removed from the first product or from a second product that is another product different form the first product, and
acquire a history related to the first product by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the first product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the first product; and
receiving an input related to the first product from a user;
diagnose the first product based on the acquired history;
determine the module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the first product based on a diagnosis result;
calculate, for each of attachment candidate modules, a degree of value improvement of a predetermined product value item assuming a case of attachment to the first product based on the following:
a value of the predetermined product value item of the first product;
a specification or a value of a predetermined value item of the plurality of modules that are the attachment candidates; and
the acquired history; and
determine a module suitable for the new module from the attachment candidate modules based on the degree of value improvement,
the attachment candidate module being a module completed by article circulation, that is a plurality of attachment candidates of a same type as the new module
Claim 13:
the circulation support includes replacing a module to be removed included in a product with a new module having the following characteristics after start of use of the product, the product including a plurality of modules:
a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed; and
a module completed by article circulation of a module removed from a first product or another product, and
receive a product value item to be improved;
determine a type of a module related to the received product value item;
create a plurality of pairs of a removal candidate module and an attachment candidate module based on the type of the module determined to be related to the received product value item, wherein the removal candidate module is a module to be a candidate to be removed from the first product, and the attachment candidate module is a module completed by the article circulation to be a candidate to be attached to the first product;
calculate, for each of the created pairs, a degree of value improvement of a predetermined product value item assuming a case where the removal candidate module is removed from the first product and the attachment candidate module is attached;
degree of value improvement and a diagnosis result; and
determine the new module from the attachment candidate module based on the degree of value improvement, the diagnosis result determined by
acquiring a history related to a first product by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the first product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the first product; and
receiving an input related to the first product from a user
diagnosing the first product based on the acquired history
determining a module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the first product based on a diagnosis result
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic modules, and generic replacement actions. That is, other than reciting a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic modules, and generic replacement actions nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic modules, and generic replacement actions in the context of this claim encompasses, based on the examples provided above, a human collecting and comparing or evaluating information associated with product recycling. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic module, and generic replacement actions, then it falls within, where appropriate (as discussed above, the “Mental Processes”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium to communicate and store information and generic modules and generic replacement actions that amount to a human removing and attaching the generic modules, i.e. “apply it”, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper, i.e. valuation, as well as collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule, identify options, e.g., calculating and value and determining a module to serve as a replacement. The generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium and generic replacement actions in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of communicating and storing information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) and generic modules and generic replacement actions to perform the human activity of replacing a module while also reciting that the generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper; "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic modules, and generic replacement actions.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic modules, and generic replacement actions to perform the steps of:
Claim 1:
acquiring a history related to a first product that has started to be used by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the first product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the first product; and
receiving an input related to the first product from a user
diagnosing the first product based on the acquired history
determining a module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the first product based on a diagnosis result
removing the module to be removed from the first product that has started to be used; and
attaching a new module to the first product, the new module being a substitute for the module to be removed,
the new module being a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed, and
the new module being a module completed by performing article circulation of at least one of the following:
the module to be removed related to the first product; and
a module removed from a second product different from the first product
Claim 11:
generate, after start of use of a product including a plurality of modules, data for supporting by replacement of a module to be removed included in the product with a new module having the following characteristics:
a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed; and
a module completed by article circulation of a module removed from a first product or another product
the generating the data for supporting the replacement of the module to be removed including:
acquiring a history related to the product by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the product; and
receiving an input related to the product form a user;
diagnosing the product based on the acquired history; and
determining the module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the product based on a diagnosis result
Claim 12:
the circulation support includes, after start of use of the product including a plurality of modules, replacing a module to be removed included in a product with a new module having the following characteristics:
a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed; and
module completed by article circulation of a module removed from the first product or from a second product that is another product different form the first product, and
acquire a history related to the first product by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the first product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the first product; and
receiving an input related to the first product from a user;
diagnose the first product based on the acquired history;
determine the module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the first product based on a diagnosis result;
calculate, for each of attachment candidate modules, a degree of value improvement of a predetermined product value item assuming a case of attachment to the first product based on the following:
a value of the predetermined product value item of the first product;
a specification or a value of a predetermined value item of the plurality of modules that are the attachment candidates; and
the acquired history; and
determine a module suitable for the new module from the attachment candidate modules based on the degree of value improvement,
the attachment candidate module being a module completed by article circulation, that is a plurality of attachment candidates of a same type as the new module
Claim 13:
the circulation support includes replacing a module to be removed included in a product with a new module having the following characteristics after start of use of the product, the product including a plurality of modules:
a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed; and
a module completed by article circulation of a module removed from a first product or another product, and
receive a product value item to be improved;
determine a type of a module related to the received product value item;
create a plurality of pairs of a removal candidate module and an attachment candidate module based on the type of the module determined to be related to the received product value item, wherein the removal candidate module is a module to be a candidate to be removed from the first product, and the attachment candidate module is a module completed by the article circulation to be a candidate to be attached to the first product;
calculate, for each of the created pairs, a degree of value improvement of a predetermined product value item assuming a case where the removal candidate module is removed from the first product and the attachment candidate module is attached;
degree of value improvement and a diagnosis result; and
determine the new module from the attachment candidate module based on the degree of value improvement, the diagnosis result determined by
acquiring a history related to a first product by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the first product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the first product; and
receiving an input related to the first product from a user
diagnosing the first product based on the acquired history
determining a module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the first product based on a diagnosis result
amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally:
Claim 2 is directed towards descriptive subject matter as it is directed towards describing articular recirculation (recycling) options and the product value.
Claim 3 is directed towards the collection and assessment of information to determine what a part is based on, i.e. durability, life, appearance, or relevance to a function.
Claim 4 is directed towards the additional element of the human activity of replacing a module and the collection and comparison of information and, based on a rule, determine options, i.e. assessing whether a part should be removed, a suitable replacement part, and valuation of the product to determine replacement.
Claim 5 is directed towards describing a rule for determining the suitability of a replacement part.
Claim 6 is directed to the additional element of the human activity of replacing a module and the collection and comparison of information and, based on a rule, determine options, i.e. assessing whether a part should be removed, a suitable replacement part, and valuation of the product to determine replacement
Claim 7 is directed to the additional element of the human activity of replacing a module and describing a rule for determining the suitability of a replacement part and why a part is being replaced.
Claim 8 is directed towards the collection of information, continuous collection of information (i.e. monitoring), updating information, and describing the updated information.
Claim 9 is directed towards writing information and describing the information.
Claim 10 is directed to the additional element of the human activity of replacing a module and describing a particular financial transaction.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for managing the recycling of a product. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 6, 8, 9, 11 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki (JP 3344845).
In regards to claim 1, Suzuki discloses a circulation method of a product including a plurality of modules, the method comprising:
In regards to:
acquiring a history related to a first product that has started to be used by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the first product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the first product; and
receiving an input related to the first product from a user
(Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 8, ¶ 3, 4; Page 11, ¶ 4, 5, 10; Page 14, ¶ 2, 4; Page 17 – 16, last ¶; Page 17, ¶ 8, 10 wherein the system monitors a product by accessing a storage unit storing product information for each product, such as, but not limited to, usage history and part replacement date, and where the history information is stored, managed, and provided by a recycling factory (sharing organization); Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein a product has stored historical usage information, as well as other historical information, to assist with monitoring a product, determining maintenance history, replacement history, and inspector provided information);
diagnosing the first product based on the acquired history (Page 19, ¶ 4 wherein a product is inspected (diagnosed); Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein a product is diagnosed based on, at least, monitored historical information);
determining a module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the first product based on a diagnosis result (Page 19, ¶ 4 – 12 wherein, based on the inspection, it is determined that the product requires repairs, e.g., remanufacturing, part replacement, and etc.; Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein, based on the analysis/review/inspection of the product a part will be deemed to be suitable or unsuitable as a replacement part);
In regards to:
removing the module to be removed from the first product that has started to be used; and
attaching a new module to the first product, the new module being a substitute for the module to be removed
(Page 8, ¶ 4; Page 13, last ¶ – Page 14; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein a product is repaired by replacing a component of the product during a remanufacturing process),
the new module being a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed (Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein an assessment is performed to determine if remanufacturing the product would be profitable, thereby improving the value of the discarded product versus keeping the unusable part), and
In regards to:
the new module being a module completed by performing article circulation of at least one of the following:
the module to be removed related to the first product; and
a module removed from a second product different from the first product
(Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, last ¶ – Page 32 wherein parts can be sourced from discarded products and assessed to be reusable for use in a product that can be remanufactured and accepts the part as a replacement part).
In regards to claim 2, Suzuki discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the article circulation is at least one action of reuse, repair, remanufacturing, and refurbishing, and
the product value item is at least one of a function, a performance, a durability, an appearance, or a life of a product
(Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, last ¶ – Page 32 wherein parts can be sourced from discarded products and assessed to be reusable for use in a product that can be remanufactured and accepts the part as a replacement part; Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein an assessment is performed to determine if remanufacturing the product would be profitable, thereby improving the value of the discarded product by extending its life, making it functional, continue performance, and making it possible to be resold).
In regards to claim 3, Suzuki discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the module to be removed includes one or more parts (Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, last ¶ – Page 32 wherein parts can be sourced from discarded products and assessed to be reusable for use in a product that can be remanufactured and accepts the part as a replacement part;),
the method further comprising determining the one or more parts constituting the module to be removed based on at least a durability, a life, an appearance, or a relevance to a function provided by the first product of the one or more part at a time of designing the product
(Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, last ¶ – Page 32 wherein parts can be sourced from discarded products and assessed to be reusable for use in a product that can be remanufactured and accepts the part as a replacement part; Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein an assessment is performed to determine if remanufacturing the product would be profitable, thereby improving the value of the discarded product by extending its life, making it functional, continue performance, and making it possible to be resold).
In regards to claim 4, Suzuki discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising
completing an attachment candidate module, which is a module that is a plurality of attachment candidates of a same type as the new module, by article circulation (Page 8, ¶ 4; Page 13, last ¶ – Page 14; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein a product is repaired by replacing a component of the product during a remanufacturing process; Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, last ¶ – Page 32 wherein parts can be sourced from discarded products and assessed to be reusable for use in a product that can be remanufactured and accepts the part as a replacement part), wherein
prior to attachment of the new module, a processor system is configured to (Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 18; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein parts have historical information that includes usage history and other information to determine if a part is eligible to be reused for remanufacturing a product, i.e. prior to replacement a part is evaluated to determine if it is suitable to be a reuseable part):
calculate, for each of the attachment candidate modules, a degree of value improvement of a predetermined product value item assuming a case of attachment to the first product based on the following (Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, [0211]; Page 32, ¶ 2, (1) – (3) wherein a calculation is performed to determine the degree of value that remanufacturing a product would provide, which is further based on a plurality of costs associated with disassembly, remanufacturing, profit, and etc.):
a value of the predetermined product value item of the first product (Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, [0211]; Page 32, ¶ 2, (1) – (3) wherein a calculation is performed to determine the degree of value that remanufacturing a product would provide, which is further based on a plurality of costs associated with disassembly, remanufacturing, profit, and etc.);
a specification or a value of a predetermined value item of the plurality of modules that are the attachment candidates (Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, [0211]; Page 32, ¶ 2, (1) – (3) wherein a calculation is performed to determine the degree of value that remanufacturing a product would provide, which is further based on a plurality of costs associated with disassembly, remanufacturing, profit, and etc.); and
the acquired history (Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein a product has stored historical usage information, as well as other historical information, to assist with monitoring a product, determining maintenance history, replacement history, and inspector provided information); and
determine a module suitable for the new module from the attachment candidate modules based on the degree of value improvement (Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, last ¶ – Page 32 wherein parts can be sourced from discarded products and assessed to be reusable for use in a product that can be remanufactured and accepts the part as a replacement part; Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein an assessment is performed to determine if remanufacturing the product would be profitable, thereby improving the value of the discarded product by extending its life, making it functional, continue performance, and making it possible to be resold).
In regards to claim 5, Suzuki discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein
the determining of the module suitable for the new module from the attachment modules is further performed based on a cost or an environmental load related to use of the first product (Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, last ¶ – Page 32 wherein parts can be sourced from discarded products and assessed to be reusable for use in a product that can be remanufactured and accepts the part as a replacement part; Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein an assessment is performed to determine if remanufacturing the product would be profitable, thereby improving the value of the discarded product by extending its life, making it functional, continue performance, and making it possible to be resold).
In regards to claim 6, Suzuki discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the method, prior to attachment of the new module, causes a processor system to (Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 18; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein parts have historical information that includes usage history and other information to determine if a part is eligible to be reused for remanufacturing a product, i.e. prior to replacement a part is evaluated to determine if it is suitable to be a reuseable part):
receive a product value item to be improved (Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, [0211]; Page 32, ¶ 2, (1) – (3) wherein a calculation is performed to determine the degree of value that remanufacturing a product would provide, which is further based on a plurality of costs associated with disassembly, remanufacturing, profit, and etc.);
determine a type of a module related to the received product value item (Page 8, ¶ 4; Page 13, last ¶ – Page 14; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein a product is repaired by replacing a component of the product during a remanufacturing process; Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, last ¶ – Page 32 wherein parts can be sourced from discarded products and assessed to be reusable for use in a product that can be remanufactured and accepts the part as a replacement part);
create a plurality of pairs of a removal candidate module and an attachment candidate module based on the type of the module determined to be related to the received product value item, wherein the removal candidate module is a module to be a candidate to be removed from the first product, and the attachment candidate module is a module completed by article circulation to be a candidate to be attached to the first product (Page 8, ¶ 4; Page 13, last ¶ – Page 14; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein a product is repaired by replacing a component of the product during a remanufacturing process);
In regards to:
calculate, for each of the created pairs, a degree of value improvement of a predetermined product value item assuming a case where the removal candidate module is removed from the first product and the attachment candidate module is attached;
determine the module to be removed from the removal candidate module based on the degree of value improvement; and
determine the new module from the attachment candidate module based on the degree of value improvement
(Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, [0211]; Page 32, ¶ 2, (1) – (3) wherein a calculation is performed to determine the degree of value that remanufacturing a product would provide, which is further based on a plurality of costs associated with disassembly, remanufacturing, profit, and etc., thereby improving the value of the discarded product by extending its life, making it functional, continue performance, and making it possible to be resold; Page 8, ¶ 4; Page 13, last ¶ – Page 14; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein a product is repaired by replacing a component of the product during a remanufacturing process).
In regards to claim 8, Suzuki discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method causes a processor system to:
In regards to:
acquire a history related to the second product by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the second product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the second product; and
receiving an input related to the second product from a user or an employee
(Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein a product has stored historical usage information, as well as other historical information, to assist with monitoring a product, determining maintenance history, replacement history, and inspector provided information and wherein the invention can be performed on a plurality of products); and
In regards to:
update at least one of the following or generate support data for update regarding the new module or a new product based on the monitoring result or the history:
design data; a manufacturing process; a part selection; or an inspection method (Page 14, ¶ 3 wherein design data is updated based on the monitored or historical information).
In regards to claim 9, Suzuki discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method causes a processor system to:
generate a product passport of the first product related to the first product; and
generate a product passport related to the first product after attachment of the new module, based on a specification of the new module or a second product passport of the new module
(Page 8, ¶ 3; Page 11, (a); Page 17, last ¶ 7; Page 19, ¶ 10, last ¶; Page 23, ¶ 5 wherein the system generates, updates, and stores information about a product and its components, i.e. “product passport”, that provides product specification information, maintenance history, remanufacturing history, usage information, and the like).
In regards to claim 11, Suzuki discloses a processor system that supports product circulation, the system comprising:
In regards to:
one or more processors; and
one or more memory resources storing an article circulation support program, wherein
the one or more processors are configured to
(Fig. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27; Page 37):
generate, after start of use of a product including a plurality of modules, data for supporting by replacement of a module to be removed included in the product with a new module having the following characteristics (Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 18; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein parts have historical information that includes usage history and other information to determine if a part is eligible to be reused for remanufacturing a product, i.e. prior to replacement a part is evaluated to determine if it is suitable to be a reuseable part; Page 8, ¶ 4; Page 13, last ¶ – Page 14; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein a product is repaired by replacing a component of the product during a remanufacturing process):
a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed (Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein an assessment is performed to determine if remanufacturing the product would be profitable, thereby improving the value of the discarded product versus keeping the unusable part); and
a module completed by article circulation of a module removed from a first product or another product (Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, last ¶ – Page 32 wherein parts can be sourced from discarded products and assessed to be reusable for use in a product that can be remanufactured and accepts the part as a replacement part);
the generating the data for supporting the replacement of the module to be removed including (Page 14, ¶ 3 wherein design data is updated based on the monitored or historical information):
In regards to:
acquiring a history related to the product by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the product; and
receiving an input related to the product form a user
(Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 8, ¶ 3, 4; Page 11, ¶ 4, 5, 10; Page 14, ¶ 2, 4; Page 17 – 16, last ¶; Page 17, ¶ 8, 10 wherein the system monitors a product by accessing a storage unit storing product information for each product, such as, but not limited to, usage history and part replacement date, and where the history information is stored, managed, and provided by a recycling factory (sharing organization); Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein a product has stored historical usage information, as well as other historical information, to assist with monitoring a product, determining maintenance history, replacement history, and inspector provided information);
diagnosing the product based on the acquired history (Page 19, ¶ 4 wherein a product is inspected (diagnosed); Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein a product is diagnosed based on, at least, monitored historical information); and
determining the module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the product based on a diagnosis result (Page 19, ¶ 4 – 12 wherein, based on the inspection, it is determined that the product requires repairs, e.g., remanufacturing, part replacement, and etc.; Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein, based on the analysis/review/inspection of the product a part will be deemed to be suitable or unsuitable as a replacement part).
In regards to claim 12, Suzuki discloses a processor system that supports product circulation, the system comprising:
In regards to:
one or more processors; and
one or more memory resources storing an article circulation support program, wherein
(Fig. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27; Page 37)
the circulation support includes, after start of use of a first product including a plurality of modules, replacing a module to be removed included in the first product with a new module having the following characteristics (Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 18; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein parts have historical information that includes usage history and other information to determine if a part is eligible to be reused for remanufacturing a product, i.e. prior to replacement a part is evaluated to determine if it is suitable to be a reuseable part; Page 8, ¶ 4; Page 13, last ¶ – Page 14; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein a product is repaired by replacing a component of the product during a remanufacturing process):
a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed (Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein an assessment is performed to determine if remanufacturing the product would be profitable, thereby improving the value of the discarded product versus keeping the unusable part); and
a module completed by article circulation of a module removed from the first product or from a second product that is another product different form the first product (Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, last ¶ – Page 32 wherein parts can be sourced from discarded products and assessed to be reusable for use in a product that can be remanufactured and accepts the part as a replacement part; Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein a product has stored historical usage information, as well as other historical information, to assist with monitoring a product, determining maintenance history, replacement history, and inspector provided information and wherein the invention can be performed on a plurality of products), and
the one or more processors execute the article circulation support program to (Fig. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27; Page 37):
In regards to:
acquire a history related to the first product by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the first product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the first product; and
receiving an input related to the first product from a user
(Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 8, ¶ 3, 4; Page 11, ¶ 4, 5, 10; Page 14, ¶ 2, 4; Page 17 – 16, last ¶; Page 17, ¶ 8, 10 wherein the system monitors a product by accessing a storage unit storing product information for each product, such as, but not limited to, usage history and part replacement date, and where the history information is stored, managed, and provided by a recycling factory (sharing organization); Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein a product has stored historical usage information, as well as other historical information, to assist with monitoring a product, determining maintenance history, replacement history, and inspector provided information);
diagnose the first product based on the acquired history (Page 19, ¶ 4 wherein a product is inspected (diagnosed); Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein a product is diagnosed based on, at least, monitored historical information);
determine the module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the first product based on a diagnosis result (Page 19, ¶ 4 – 12 wherein, based on the inspection, it is determined that the product requires repairs, e.g., remanufacturing, part replacement, and etc.; Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein, based on the analysis/review/inspection of the product a part will be deemed to be suitable or unsuitable as a replacement part);
calculate, for each of attachment candidate modules, a degree of value improvement of a predetermined product value item assuming a case of attachment to the first product based on the following (Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, [0211]; Page 32, ¶ 2, (1) – (3) wherein a calculation is performed to determine the degree of value that remanufacturing a product would provide, which is further based on a plurality of costs associated with disassembly, remanufacturing, profit, and etc.):
a value of the predetermined product value item of the first product (Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, [0211]; Page 32, ¶ 2, (1) – (3) wherein a calculation is performed to determine the degree of value that remanufacturing a product would provide, which is further based on a plurality of costs associated with disassembly, remanufacturing, profit, and etc.);
a specification or a value of a predetermined value item of the plurality of modules that are the attachment candidates (Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, [0211]; Page 32, ¶ 2, (1) – (3) wherein a calculation is performed to determine the degree of value that remanufacturing a product would provide, which is further based on a plurality of costs associated with disassembly, remanufacturing, profit, and etc.); and
the acquired history (Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein a product has stored historical usage information, as well as other historical information, to assist with monitoring a product, determining maintenance history, replacement history, and inspector provided information); and
determine a module suitable for the new module from the attachment candidate modules based on the degree of value improvement (Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, last ¶ – Page 32 wherein parts can be sourced from discarded products and assessed to be reusable for use in a product that can be remanufactured and accepts the part as a replacement part; Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein an assessment is performed to determine if remanufacturing the product would be profitable, thereby improving the value of the discarded product by extending its life, making it functional, continue performance, and making it possible to be resold),
the attachment candidate module being a module completed by article circulation, that is a plurality of attachment candidates of a same type as the new module (Page 8, ¶ 4; Page 13, last ¶ – Page 14; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein a product is repaired by replacing a component of the product during a remanufacturing process).
In regards to claim 13, Suzuki discloses a processor system that supports product circulation, the system comprising:
In regards to:
one or more processors; and
one or more memory resources storing an article circulation support program, wherein
(Fig. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27; Page 37)
the circulation support includes replacing a module to be removed included in a product with a new module having the following characteristics after start of use of the product, the product including a plurality of modules (Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 18; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein parts have historical information that includes usage history and other information to determine if a part is eligible to be reused for remanufacturing a product, i.e. prior to replacement a part is evaluated to determine if it is suitable to be a reuseable part; Page 8, ¶ 4; Page 13, last ¶ – Page 14; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein a product is repaired by replacing a component of the product during a remanufacturing process):
a module of which a value has improved in a predetermined product value item compared to the module to be removed (Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein an assessment is performed to determine if remanufacturing the product would be profitable, thereby improving the value of the discarded product versus keeping the unusable part); and
a module completed by article circulation of a module removed from another product (Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, last ¶ – Page 32 wherein parts can be sourced from discarded products and assessed to be reusable for use in a product that can be remanufactured and accepts the part as a replacement part), and
the one or more processors execute the article circulation support program to:
receive a product value item to be improved (Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, [0211]; Page 32, ¶ 2, (1) – (3) wherein a calculation is performed to determine the degree of value that remanufacturing a product would provide, which is further based on a plurality of costs associated with disassembly, remanufacturing, profit, and etc.);
determine a type of a module related to the received product value item (Page 8, ¶ 4; Page 13, last ¶ – Page 14; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein a product is repaired by replacing a component of the product during a remanufacturing process; Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, last ¶ – Page 32 wherein parts can be sourced from discarded products and assessed to be reusable for use in a product that can be remanufactured and accepts the part as a replacement part);
create a plurality of pairs of a removal candidate module and an attachment candidate module based on the type of the module determined to be related to the received product value item, wherein the removal candidate module is a module to be a candidate to be removed from the first product, and the attachment candidate module is a module completed by the article circulation to be a candidate to be attached to the first product (Page 8, ¶ 4; Page 13, last ¶ – Page 14; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein a product is repaired by replacing a component of the product during a remanufacturing process);
In regards to:
calculate, for each of the created pairs, a degree of value improvement of a predetermined product value item assuming a case where the removal candidate module is removed from the first product and the attachment candidate module is attached;
determine the module to be removed from the removal candidate module based on the degree of value improvement and a diagnosis result; and
determine the new module from the attachment candidate module based on the degree of value improvement, the diagnosis result determined by
(Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, [0211]; Page 32, ¶ 2, (1) – (3) wherein a calculation is performed to determine the degree of value that remanufacturing a product would provide, which is further based on a plurality of costs associated with disassembly, remanufacturing, profit, and etc., thereby improving the value of the discarded product by extending its life, making it functional, continue performance, and making it possible to be resold; Page 8, ¶ 4; Page 13, last ¶ – Page 14; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein a product is repaired by replacing a component of the product during a remanufacturing process):
acquiring a history related to a first product by performing at least one of the following:
monitoring the first product;
receiving, from a sharing organization, a maintenance history or a rental history related to the first product; and
receiving an input related to the first product from a user
(Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 8, ¶ 3, 4; Page 11, ¶ 4, 5, 10; Page 14, ¶ 2, 4; Page 17 – 16, last ¶; Page 17, ¶ 8, 10 wherein the system monitors a product by accessing a storage unit storing product information for each product, such as, but not limited to, usage history and part replacement date, and where the history information is stored, managed, and provided by a recycling factory (sharing organization); Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein a product has stored historical usage information, as well as other historical information, to assist with monitoring a product, determining maintenance history, replacement history, and inspector provided information);
diagnosing the first product based on the acquired history (Page 19, ¶ 4 wherein a product is inspected (diagnosed); Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein a product is diagnosed based on, at least, monitored historical information);
determining a module to be removed from among a plurality of modules constituting the first product based on a diagnosis result (Page 19, ¶ 4 – 12 wherein, based on the inspection, it is determined that the product requires repairs, e.g., remanufacturing, part replacement, and etc.; Page 6, ¶ 9; Page 11, ¶ 5; Page 13, ¶ 4, 6, 7; Page 14, ¶ 3; Page 19, ¶ 4, 8, 10, last ¶; Page 20, [0125]; Page 20, Step206b1, last ¶; Page 26, (3); Page 28, ¶ 3 wherein, based on the analysis/review/inspection of the product a part will be deemed to be suitable or unsuitable as a replacement part).
______________________________________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 3344845) in view of Yee (Here’s where you can buy a TPM for Windows 11).
In regards to claim 7, Suzuki discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising
completing an attachment candidate module, which is a module that is a plurality of attachment candidates of a same type as the new module, by article circulation (Page 8, ¶ 4; Page 13, last ¶ – Page 14; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein a product is repaired by replacing a component of the product during a remanufacturing process), wherein
prior to attachment of the new module, the processor system is configured to:
receive an identifier of a module to be updated for […] a hardware requirement […] (Page 8, ¶ 3; Page 11, (1) wherein product identification and part identification are stored and received/used; Page 8, ¶ 4; Page 13, last ¶ – Page 14; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein a product is repaired by replacing a component of the product during a remanufacturing process, i.e. a part has failed); and
select, from the attachment candidate modules, the new module that satisfies the hardware requirement (Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, last ¶ – Page 32 wherein parts can be sourced from discarded products and assessed to be reusable for use in a product that can be remanufactured and accepts the part as a replacement part).
Suzuki discloses a system and method of assessing the condition of a product to determine if it can be repaired or serviced so that its useable life can be extended. Despite this, Suzuki does not list all possible reasons that could cause the life of a product to end other than hardware failure, i.e. program update.
To be more specific, Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose:
prior to attachment of the new module, the processor system is configured to:
(i) receive an identifier of a module to be updated for which a program update has failed and a hardware requirement of the failed program update
However, Yee teaches that one reason of why a product’s lifecycle can end is due to a software update. Yet Yee also teaches that this does not necessarily mean that this can always lead to the hardware no longer being useable. Specifically, Yee teaches that in order to upgrade a computer system to Windows 11, the computer system requires a Trusted Platform Module 2.0 (TPM 2.0), otherwise the computer system will fail to run the upgraded software. As a result, for users who do not wish to purchase a completely new computer system or motherboard that already includes TPM 2.0 a TPM 2.0 module can be purchased separately and installed onto the motherboard (if it is capable) to allow for the installation of the new software. One of ordinary skill in the art reviewing Suzuki would have found it obvious to look upon and incorporate the teachings Yee because Yee establishes that alternative solutions exist to extend the life of a product and that a software upgrade does not necessarily result in the end of the product’s lifecycle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Yee as this further reinforces Suzuki’s ideology of exhausting all possible strategies to extend the life of a product, which, in turn, would reduce the amount of waste being produced.
(See Pages 1 – 5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the product lifecycle extension system and method of Suzuki with the ability to determine whether a software upgrade is causing the product’s lifecycle to end due to the hardware failing to support the upgrade, as taught by Yee, as this provides a user with the opportunity to review what options are available and whether the product can be serviced to allow for the product to be capable of using the software upgrade, thereby extending the life of the product and reducing waste.
______________________________________________________________________
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 3344845) in view of C2KIT (Remanufactured Vs Refurbished).
In regards to claim 10, Suzuki discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the removal is performed after the first product is returned from a first user to a sharing organization,
the new module relates to at least an appearance of the product and is an appearance part made of a self-repairing material or includes the appearance part,
the method further comprising
[selling] the first product after the attachment from the sharing organization to the first user or another user
(Page 19, ¶ 8; Page 31, last ¶ – Page 32 wherein parts can be sourced from discarded products and assessed to be reusable for use in a product that can be remanufactured and accepts the part as a replacement part; Page 4, Route3a/¶ 5; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein an assessment is performed to determine if remanufacturing the product would be profitable, thereby improving the value of the discarded product by extending its life, making it functional, continue performance, and making it possible to be resold; Page 8, ¶ 4; Page 13, last ¶ – Page 14; Page 19, ¶ 8 wherein a product is repaired by replacing a component of the product during a remanufacturing process).
Suzuki discloses a system and method of assessing the condition of a product to determine if it can be repaired or serviced so that its useable life can be extended and reselling the remanufactured product. Despite this, Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose whether remanufactured products can be rented.
To be more specific, Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose:
renting the first product after the attachment from the sharing organization to the first user or another user.
However, C2IT, which is also recites that products can be remanufactured or furbished, further teaches that remanufactured products can be rented. C2IT teaches that remanufactured products are returned to at least their original performance with a warranty that is equivalent or better than that of newly manufactured products and are ensured that they are within, if not exceed original specifications. C2IT teaches that renting remanufactured/refurbished products, such as laptops, reduces digital exclusion by making the product more accessible to more users while reinforcing Suzuki’s ideology of exhausting all possible strategies to extend the life of a product, which, in turn, would reduce the amount of waste being produced.
(Pages 1, 2, 8 – 10, 13)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the product lifecycle extension system and method of Suzuki with the ability to determine rent remanufactured products, as taught by C2IT, as this provides an additional avenue of extending the life of a product and reducing waste.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that applying the known technique of renting remanufactured products, as taught by C2IT, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of C2IT to the teachings of Suzuki would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such product life extension and waste reduction techniques to products that have been discarded. Further, applying the waste reduction technique of C2IT to that of Suzuki would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for providing an additional avenue of extending the life of a product and reducing waste.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
First, with regards to “well-understood, routine, and conventional activity” the rejection does not rely on this rationale and, accordingly, Berkheimer does not apply.
With that said, the claimed invention is not improving technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, or deeply rooted in technology. The claimed invention is directed towards a plurality of abstract ideas that fall under one or more of “Mental Processes”; “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”; “Mathematical Concepts”. This is further evidenced by the applicant’s reliance on ¶ 7 of the applicant’s specification, wherein the applicant argues that the claimed invention is directed towards circular economy, e.g., recycling and reusing products and/or its components, improving the perceived value of a product, prolonging the life of a product (again, by recycling and/or reusing a product and/or its components), and promoting article circulation (recycling and reusing products and/or its components). The Examiner asserts that recycling, reusing, or repairing a product is not an improvement to the product, but returning it to its intended functionality.
The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is similar to a mechanic repairing a vehicle using parts from another vehicle, e.g., determining that the headlight is damaged, finding a replacement headlight from a donor vehicle, scrapyard, or the like, and replacing the damaged headlight with the donated headlight, thereby, increasing the perceived value of the vehicle because it is no longer damaged, prolonging the life of the vehicle because it has a functioning headlight and is not a danger on the road, and promoting article circulation because the cost used and functioning headlight can be lower than a new headlight. The claimed invention is not directed towards, using the headlight example provided above, technological improvements to extend the useful life of the original vehicle’s headlight or technological workarounds to allow continue use of the damaged headlight.
With regards to BASCOM, the decision does not apply to the instant application because, as discussed above, the claimed invention is not directed towards improving technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, or deeply rooted in technology. Moreover, the claimed invention is an idea of a solution without providing specifics of how the solution is attained and neither does it rely on technological improvements to achieve the solution. Referring to Pages 22, 23 of the applicant’s specification, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention relies on humans to perform the invention and simply providing an environment and related tools to allow the human to make a repair. Referring to the example above, the claimed invention, in light of Pages 22, 23 of the applicant’s specification, encompasses providing a repair shop and headlight repair and removal tools to a mechanic so that the mechanic can perform the replacement/refurbishing/recycling process, i.e. replacing the damaged headlight with the recycled headlight to remanufacture the vehicle to have a working headlight.
Rejection under 35 USC 102/103
The Examiner asserts that the amendments, which were previously present in other claims, are insufficient to overcome the rejection and the Examiner respectfully disagrees that Suzuki does not disclose these elements of the claimed invention.
Suzuki discloses that the system monitors a plurality of products, e.g., products currently in use or no longer useable, by accessing a storage unit storing product information for each product, such as, but not limited to, usage history and part replacement date, and where the history information is stored, managed, and provided by a recycling factory (sharing organization). Suzuki further discloses that the product is inspected by an inspector to diagnose the useability of the product and/or its components to determine if parts can be salvaged and used for other products or whether the product can be repaired using parts from other products. The system stores and manages product information to assess various characteristics of the product and/or its components to determine if they are in need of repair or replacement or whether they can be used for other products.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Graham (US Patent 12,511,623 B2); Chiaramonte (EP 3483799 B1) – which are directed towards asset diagnosing and repair
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 GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 1/23/2026