DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 3-8 are cancelled and claims 1, 2, and 9-11 are amended while claims 12-15 are newly added. Claims 1-2 and 9-15 (although claims 12-15 are restricted by original presentation) filed March 23, 2026 are pending and are hereby examined.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 12-15 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the user purchasing a consumable and a purchase cost.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 12-15 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-2 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
9. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-2 and 9-11 are directed to a system, all of which are statutory. Claims 1-2 and 9-11 are statutory classes of invention.
10. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea of changing provision state of service when determining that prescribed condition is met.
The independent claim 1 recites the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
… storing therein provision mode information indicating a provision mode of providing a consumable under a service to a user, the provision mode being settable to one mode from among a plurality of modes including a first mode and a second mode;
and… configured to perform, in response to receiving a notification that a residual quantity of a consumable in use under the service has dropped below a predetermined residual quantity;
determining whether a prescribed condition for changing the provision mode is met; changing, when determining the prescribed condition is met in a state where the
provision mode information stored in… indicates that the provision mode is the first mode, the provision mode from the first node to the second node;
when the provision mode information stored…. Indicates that the provision mode is the second mode,
generating a machine-readable code, the machine-readable code enabling the user to obtain a consumable in a manner not reliant on delivery;
transmitting the machine-readable code to… associated with the user;
and when the provision mode information stored in… indicates that the provision mode is the first mode,
transmitting a delivery request to a delivery center, the delivery request requesting the delivery center to deliver a consumable to the user.
11. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, changing provision state of service when determining that prescribed condition is met falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
12. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites changing provision state of service when determining that prescribed condition is met with generally recited computer elements such as memory, mobile terminal, and controller which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for changing provision state of service when determining that prescribed condition is met. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
13. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a memory, mobile terminal, and controller to perform these steps 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. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
14. Regarding dependent claims 2 and 9, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of changing provision state of service when determining that prescribed condition is met, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Regarding dependent claims 10 and 11, although these claims recite a generally recited memory, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of changing provision state of service when determining that prescribed condition is met, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
16. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Examiner Notes
17. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 15-16, and 22 are novel and unobvious over the prior art, however, there remains a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The Examiner suggests clarifying terms: prescribed condition and provision mode and consumable and residual quantity. The Examiner suggests incorporating dependent claims 2 and 11 (and cancelled claims 3-8) together into the independent claims. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
18. After further search and consideration, the most pertinent U.S. prior art was found to be Funane (US 2019/0349270) and Tomioka (US 2018/0239568). Tomioka (US 2018/0239568) is directed to an image processing system. Funane (US 2019/0349270) is directed to a device management system. Meanwhile, Lahann, Schuh et al (Monetizing Industry 4.0: Design Principles for Subscription Business in the Manufacturing Industry, NPL) was found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art, and is directed to monetizing subscriptions in the manufacturing industry.
19. However, both the most pertinent U.S. prior art and NPL fail to disclose all of the limitations particularly:
changing, when determining the prescribed condition is met in a state where the provision mode information stored in the memory indicates that the provision mode is the first mode, the provision mode from then first mode to the second mode;
when the provision mode information stored in the memory indicates that the provision mode is the second mode,
generating a machine-readable code, the machine-readable code enabling the user to obtain a consumable in a manner not reliant on delivery.
20. No prior art cited here or in any previous Office Action neither fully anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter present in the independent claims, either alone or in combination. The limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed in the application, are novel and unobvious.
Response to Arguments
21. Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, the applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, as noted above.
a) Response to 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments (not an abstract idea)
22. The Examiner respectfully disagrees in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, therefore it is maintained. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of changing provision state of service when determining that prescribed condition is met, which falls under commercial or legal interactions, or could also fall under fundamental economic practices. In MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), it describes concepts relating to managing relationships or transactions between people, or satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation, as being under certain methods of organizing human activity. Changing a provision state of service when determining that prescribed condition is met would fall under sales activities or behaviors and business relations, therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
b) Argument #2: Applicant argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 (improvement in technology)
23. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to improving the functioning of the computer/technology/technical field, the claims recite the additional elements of a memory, mobile terminal, and controller, and they are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore are merely using computer processing components for voucher verification. After further review of the Specification, there is no disclosure of technical enhancements to any of the computing components, as in multiple instances of the Specification it discloses generally recited elements. Interpreting the claims in view of the Specification, the claims recite the judicial exception are mere instructions to apply the exception of changing provision state of service when determining that prescribed condition is met (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The elements recited above do not recite and are not directed to any elements or functions that improve underlying technology.
24. According to MPEP 2106.05(a), it states: “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer).”
25. Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., the additional elements of a memory, mobile terminal, and controller, that are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to changing provision state of service when determining that prescribed condition is met. The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., changing provision state of service when determining that prescribed condition is met, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field. Therefore, the claims do not integrate into a practical application either by improvement to a computer/technology/technical field.
26. The claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. Claims are directed to an abstract idea of voucher verification. Applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, the Specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems or technology. Applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
27. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of the independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Schuh et al (Monetizing Industry 4.0: Design Principles for Subscription Business in the Manufacturing Industry, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
29. 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).
30. 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.
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
32. 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.
33. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
34. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights