DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Office action is responsive to the communications filed October 17, 2025. Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, and 13 were amended. Claims 2 and 11 were canceled. Claims 1, 3-9, 12, and 13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
As per the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant asserts that the amended claims provide a “concrete technical teaching” and the “new features provide an ‘inventive concept’ which is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to something “significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to collecting and transmitting data, which categorized under the methods of organizing human activity grouping. The certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts related to fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the claims have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a pre-determined rule engine to determine a recommendation recited in claim 1.
The claim recites the generic placeholder “pre-determined rule engine” for performing the functions identified above. Upon review, the Examiner notes that the claimed phrase meets Prongs (A) and (B) as set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I. Additionally, the Examiner notes that “pre-determined rule engine” is not being modified by sufficiently definite structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function; therefore, the claimed phrase meets Invocation Prong (C).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Further it is unclear form the specification which structure and algorithm are performing the corresponding function.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation a pre-determined rule engine to determine a recommendation recited in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
It is unclear from the specification which structure and algorithm are performing the corresponding function.
Claims 3-10, and 12 are rejected based on their dependency from independent claim 1.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 3-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case,1, 3-10, and 12 are directed to an apparatus. Claim 13 is directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 13 recites determining that the error of the household appliance has occurred; analyzing the error of the household appliance using a pre-determined rule engine to determine a recommendation on how to handle the error of the household appliance, and if a solution for the error is determined to be a software update of the household appliance the notification begins an implementation of the software update, and if it is determined that the repair intervention is required the notification contains a link to a booking center for booking a repair intervention for repairing the household appliance.
Claim 1 recites similar language.
The dependent claims recite determine an appliance identifier of an erroneous household appliance; and
Determine a user identifier of the suer and/or the user equipment based on the appliance identifier using an event engine which contains a mapping between a plurality of different appliance identifiers and a plurality of different user identifiers.
Hence, claims 1, 3-10, 12, and 13 are directed to collecting and transmitting data. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are directed to an abstract idea that is categorized under the methods of organizing human activity grouping. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The claims recite the following additional elements: household appliance and the control entity. The specification of the present invention states the following:
[0003] During operation of a household appliance, such as a washing machine, a dishwasher or a refrigerator, an error may occur, and a corresponding error message may be indicated on the display of the household appliance. A user of the household appliance may not know how to react to the error message, thereby creating an uncomfortable situation for the user.
[0006] According to an aspect, a control entity for managing an error of a household appliance is described. Example household appliances are: a dishwasher, an oven, a kitchen machine, a coffee maker, a washing machine, a dryer, a hob, etc. The control entity may be a control unit comprised within the household appliance. Alternatively, the control entity may be a backend unit (e.g., a server) which is external to the household appliance, and which is in communication with the household appliance via a communication link (such as LAN, WLAN, 3G, 4G or 5G).
However, the claims do not include additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than recitation of generic components that serves to perform generic functions. These functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Moreover, the limitations generically, referring to collecting and transmitting data grouping do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,565,566 to Davis (“Davis”) in view and U.S. Publication No. 2021/0021610 to Ahire et al. (“Ahire”).
As per claim 1, Davis discloses the control entity is configured to: determine that the error of the household appliance has occurred and provide a notification to user equipment of a user of the household appliance; analyze the error of the household appliance using a pre-determined rule engine to determine a recommendation on how to handle the error of the household appliance and to determine whether or not the repair intervention is required; and (col. 6, ll. 50-61; col. 3, ll. 34-42l Fig.7) and
If it is determined that the repair invention is required the notification having a link to a booking center for booking a repair intervention for repairing the household appliance (Fig. 8, “schedule sensor maintenance”).
Davis does not expressly disclose if a solution for the error is determined to be a software update of the household appliance the notification begins an implementation of the software update.
Ahire discloses if a solution for the error is determined to be a software update of the household appliance the notification begins an implementation of the software update (paragraph [0053]).
Also, the claims recite the conditional /optional language “--if." Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Ahire into Davis as they both provides notifications to the user. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5, Davis discloses the control entity is configured to: determine that the repair intervention for repairing the household appliance has been requested or booked by the user; analyze the error of the household appliance to determine at least one spare part which is needed for the repair intervention; and automatically send an order for the at least one spare part to a service warehouse (see Fig. 6).
As per claim 6, Davis discloses the control entity is configured to: analyze the error of the household appliance to determine a recommendation on how to handle the error of the household appliance, wherein the recommendation contains at least one action that should be taken by the user for removing the error of the household appliance; and provide the recommendation within the notification (see Fig. 7).
As per claim 7, Davis discloses the control entity is configured to: order at least one spare part for repairing the household appliance (Fig. 8).
As per claim 8, Davis discloses the control entity is configured to: determine an appliance identifier of an erroneous household appliance; and determine a user identifier of the user and/or of the user equipment based on the appliance identifier using an event engine which contains a mapping between a plurality of different appliance identifiers and a plurality of different user identifiers (Fig. 7; col. 16, ll. 59-62 - the sub-method 400 may proceed to block 410, where the user computer 24 automatically collects information about one or more potential replacement components that satisfy the criteria of the order parameters 140 that have been pre-selected by the user. In one aspect, the user computer 24 may search, via a web browser for example, websites on the Internet that are operated by one or more replacement component sellers in order to identify one or more potential replacement components that meet the criteria of one or more of the order parameters 140).
Also, the claims recite the conditional /optional language “--or." Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
As per claim 9, Davis discloses wherein the notification contains an email and/or a notification of a software application running on the user equipment (col. 11, ll. 10-30-The order assistance module 142 may include a set of instructions that when executed by the processing unit 100 cause the processing unit 100 to assist the user in ordering one or more of the replacement components 38a, 38b, and/or 38c from one or more of the replacement component sellers 30a, 30b, and/or 30c and/or ordering one or more of the repair services from one or more of the repair service providers 28a and/or 28b based on one or more of the order parameters 140. Examples of algorithms that may be employed by the order assistance module 142 to provide the automated ordering assistance are described below in more detail… the order assistance module 142 may cause the processing unit 100 to present the relevant information to the user through, for example, the display 116 of the user interface 114, an email).
Also, the claims recite the conditional /optional language “--or." Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
As per claim 10, Davis discloses the control entity is configured to: receive an error message which is indicative of the error of the household appliance via a communication link; and send the notification to the user equipment via the communication link (see claim 1 above).
As per claim 11, Davis discloses wherein the control entity analyzes the error of the household appliance using a pre-determined rule engine to determine whether or not the repair intervention is required (see claim 1 above).
As per claim 12, Davis discloses the error of the household appliance is analyzed using a pre-determined rule engine to determine the at least one spare part which is needed for the repair intervention (see claim 5 above).
Claim 13 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Ahire as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP-20230387-10 to Wu hao jie (“Wu”).
As per claim 3, Davis in combination with Ahire disclose the control entity of claim 1. Wu discloses the link is a weblink to a booking website; the booking website contains at least one field that needs to be filled in when booking the repair intervention; and the control entity is configured to: determine information that is to be filled in the at least one field of the booking website; and generate the link to the booking website which causes the at least one field to be filled automatically with the information determined (see page 9 of translated document - In terminal device 300B, "yes" shown in FIG. 7(a) is selected by watching-side user U2, that is, input receiving unit 302 receives an answer from watching-side user U2 to the effect that a repair request will be made on behalf of user U2. In this case, the display device 301 displays an application form such as that shown in FIG. 7B, for example, and allows the watching-side user U2 to confirm the contents of the application form. When the watching-side user U2 reserves the repair request on the Internet, the process is terminated and page 10 - the support providing unit transmits the defect information to the terminal device 300B of the watching-side user U2 in a format that can be automatically input to the application form based on the information on the application form for applying for the repair request to the outside on the web).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Wu into the system of Davis in combination with Ahire. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 4, Davis in combination of Ahire and Wu disclose the at least one field includes: an appliance field to be filled with an appliance identifier of the household appliance; a user field to be filled with a user identifier, a name and/or an address of the user of the household appliance; and/or an error field to be filled with an error code and/or a description of the error of the household appliance (claims 1 and 3 above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697