DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Office action is responsive to the communications filed November 12, 2025. Claims 1-5 and 7 were amended. Claims 1-7 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended the claim to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of the claims.
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.
As per the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant submits that the claims “provide a specific technical effect of improving maintenance management by facilitating identification and correction of factors that cause repeated repairs for uniquely identified products, rather than merely outputting an abstract determination result.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The particulars/algorithm to improve the technology is not illustrated in the claims.
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 1-7 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, claims 1-6 are directed to system and claim 7 is directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
For example, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of analyzing gathered information. The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. 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 claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to analyzing gathered information. More specifically, the following non-underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the underlined, bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
1. A repair information providing apparatus, comprising:
a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein
the memory is configured to store past repair information regarding repairs of a product, the past repair information being acquired from an information input terminal, the past repair information including a product identification number for identifying the product that has been repaired, wherein
the processor is configured to:
acquire new repair information regarding a new repair of the product from the information input terminal, the new repair being performed at a first time point; extract candidate repair information regarding a candidate repair performed at a second time point before the first time point from the past repair information stored in the memory, the candidate repair information having the product identification number same as the new repair information;
determine whether the new repair is a re-repair for eliminating a defect of the product that has not been eliminated by the candidate repair based on the new repair information and the candidate repair information,
when it is determined that the new repair is the re-repair, associate the new repair information with the candidate repair information; and
output a result of the association,
the past repair information and the new repair information include wherein the repair information includes occurrence information of the defect and component part information of a repaired component part for every repair of the product, wherein
the processor is configured to determine that the repair the new repair is the re-repair when a first target component part repaired at the first time point and a second target component part repaired at the second time point coincide with each other, or when a defect content identified by the occurrence information of the defect in the first target component part and a defect content identified by the occurrence information of the defect in the second target component part coincide with each other.
Independent claim 7 recites similar language.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the providing apparatus, memory, input terminal, and processor are merely used as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of analyzing gathered information. Viewed as a whole, the use of providing apparatus, memory, input terminal, and processor as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer or computer networks performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of the providing apparatus, memory, input terminal, and processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than using generic hardware or software to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of providing a confirmation of booking a provided travel itinerary. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of providing a confirmation of booking a provided travel itinerary. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. 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)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea such as determining that a plurality of repairs performed at a plurality of the first time points are re-repairs for the repair carried at the second time point.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-7029263-B2 (“JP ‘263) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,977,423 to Merg et al. (“Merg”) and CN113689014A to Liu et al. (“Liu”).
As per claim 1, JP ‘263 discloses a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory is configured to store past repair information regarding repairs of a product(see page 4 of translation–The system includes one or more processors; page 8- memory, such as a computer-readable medium that stores data; p. 5 – repair history database); the past repair information being acquired from an information input terminal (p. 2 – damage type and damage information is received form the user interface as input),
the past repair information and the new repair information include wherein the repair information includes occurrence information of the defect and component part information of a repaired component part for every repair of the product,
wherein the processor is configured to determine that the new repair is the re-repair when a first target component part repaired at the first time point and a second target component part repaired at the second time point coincide with each other, or when a defect content identified by the occurrence information of the defect in the first target component part and a defect content identified by the occurrence information of the defect in the second target component part coincide with each other.
JP ‘263 does not expressly disclose the past repair information including a product identification number for identifying the product that has been repaired;
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire new repair information regarding a new repair of the product from the information input terminal, the new repair being performed at a first time point;
extract candidate repair information regarding a candidate repair performed at a second time point before the first time point from the past repair information stored in the memory, the candidate repair information having the product identification number same as the new repair information;
determine whether the new repair is a re-repair for eliminating a defect of the product that has not been eliminated by the candidate repair based on the new repair information and the candidate repair information,
when it is determined that the new repair is the re-repair, associate the new repair information with the candidate repair information; and
output a result of the association, wherein
the new repair information include wherein the repair information includes occurrence information of the defect and component part information of a repaired component part for every repair of the product, wherein
wherein the processor is configured to determine that the new repair is the re-repair when a first target component part repaired at the first time point and a second target component part repaired at the second time point coincide with each other, or when a defect content identified by the occurrence information of the defect in the first target component part and a defect content identified by the occurrence information of the defect in the second target component part coincide with each other.
Merg discloses a processor is configured to: acquire new repair information regarding a new repair of the product from the information input terminal, the new repair being performed at a first time point (Fig. 5, Abstract -computing device may be configured to receive vehicle information including identification information of a vehicle – col. 1, ll. 26-29 one or more of identification information of a vehicle)
extract candidate repair information regarding a candidate repair performed at a second time point before the first time point from the past repair information stored in the memory, the candidate repair information having the product identification number same as the new repair information (col. 5, ll. 49-63);
determine whether the new repair is a re-repair for eliminating a defect of the product that has not been eliminated by the candidate repair based on the new repair information and the candidate repair information (col. 5, ll. 44-45 –vehicle repair information (e.g. symptoms, repair order, successful vehicle fixes, etc.),
output a result of the association (col. 2, ll. 44-46; col. 6, ll. 8-12),
the new repair information include wherein the repair information includes occurrence information of the defect and component part information of a repaired component part for every repair of the product, wherein the processor is configured to determine that the new repair is the re-repair when a first target component part repaired at the first time point and a second target component part repaired at the second time point coincide with each other, or when a defect content identified by the occurrence information of the defect in the first target component part and a defect content identified by the occurrence information of the defect in the second target component part coincide with each other (col. 8, l. 57 – col. 9, l. 4).
Liu also discloses determine whether the new repair is a re-repair for eliminating a defect of the product that has not been eliminated by the candidate repair based on the new repair information and the candidate repair information; and
when it is determined that the new repair is the re-repair, associate the new repair information with the candidate repair information (p. 12 at step S403).
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."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify JP ‘263 by including the features of Merg and Liu as they are seek to efficiently process repair information. Applying the known technique of Merg in combination with Liu into the system of JP’263 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would have yielded predictable results.
As per claim 2, JP’263 in combination with Merg and Liu disclose wherein the processor is configured to determine that the repair is the re-repair, that when the defect content identified by the occurrence information of the defect in the first target component part and the defect content identified by the occurrence information of the defect in the second target component part coincide with each other and a mounting part of the first target component part and a mounting part of the second target component part in the product coincide with each other (page 3-a repair history database is queried to determine if this damage type has been encountered and resolved in the past; page 4 – past approved repair 122 contains historical data and details of past damage observed in a particular structure… The previously approved repair 122 may include the details of the previous observed damage, including the size of the damage, the location of the damage on the structure, and any other details regarding the damage and claim 1 above).
As per claim 6, JP’263 in combination with Merg and Liu disclose a period of time from the second time point to the first time point falls within a predetermined period (see claim 1 above).
Claim 7 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’263 in combination with Merg and Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN15222076A to Zhao et al. (“Zhao”)
As per claim 3, JP’263 in combination with Merg and Liu disclose the apparatus of claim 1. The references do not expressly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to calculate a score value related to whether the new repair is the re-repair based on the new repair information and the candidate repair information, wherein the processor is configured to calculate the score value of a case where the first target component part and the second target component part coincide with each other to be higher than the score value of a case where the defect content identified by the occurrence information of the defect in the first target component part and the defect content identified by the occurrence information of the defect in the second target component part coincide with each other.
Zhao discloses calculate a score value related to whether the new repair is the re-repair based on the new repair information and the candidate repair information, wherein the processor is configured to calculate the score value of a case where the first target component part and the second target component part coincide with each other to be higher than the score value of a case where the defect content identified by the occurrence information of the defect in the first target component part and the defect content identified by the occurrence information of the defect in the second target component part coincide with each other (p. 4 at SS3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify JP ‘263 by including the features of Merg, Liu, and Zhao as they are seek to efficiently process repair information. Applying the known technique of Merg in combination with Liu and Zhao into the system of JP’263 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would have yielded predictable results.
As per claim 4, JP’263 in combination with Merg, Liu and Zhao disclose wherein the processor, when determining that a plurality of new repairs are re-repairs for the candidate repair, is further configured to identify identifies a combination of the new repair performed at the first time point having the score value highest among the plurality of new repairs and the candidate repair (see claims 1 and 3 above).
As per claim 5, JP’263 in combination with Merg, Liu and Zhao disclose wherein the component part information is a part number including a first character portion identifying a mounting part of the component part and a second character portions identifying the component part, wherein the processor is configured to calculate the score value of a case where the second character portion of the first target component part and the second character portion of the second target component part coincide with each other to be higher than the score value of a case where only the first character portion of the first target component part and the first character portion of the second target component part coincide with each other (see claims 1 and 3; Merg at col. 8, l. 6 – VIN).
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