DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to amendments filed January 15th, 2026. Claims 1-5 and 8-15 have been amended. Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 14, filed 1/15/26, with respect to claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of 10/21/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 15, filed 1/15/26, with respect to claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) rejection of 10/21/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 15, filed 1/15/26, with respect to claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of 10/21/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 filed 1/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 15-25 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims present statutory subject matter. Beginning on page 16 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claim are not directed to an abstract idea. Following citing steps of eligibility analysis of MPEP 2106.04(d), Applicant argues on page 19 of the provided remarks, “independent claims 1, 13, and 14 are directed to an improvement in the functioning of another technology, namely an improvement in determining timings for replacement of products, such as machines, currently owned by potential clients thereby enabling continued operation of the product.” While Applicant cites pages 3-6 of the as-filed Specification as support for this argument, Examine respectfully disagrees and argues that the improvement outlined is directed to the abstract idea. Examiner begins by asserting that the improvement in determining timings for replacement of products, such as machines is an observation, judgment, and evaluation of the human mind. The claimed determination, reciting “determining an estimated update timing which is an estimated timing determined based on considering a rated lifetime of a product currently owned by a potential client and whether the product currently owned is ready to be updated by replacing the product with an updated product”, is an observation and judgment of the “rated lifetime” of a product by an observer. While Applicant argues within the cited portions of the as-filed Specification “there can be a case where it is difficult for a sales representative or the like without abundant expert knowledge or work experience to set appropriate search conditions” Examiner asserts that the potential lack of experience and knowledge of sales representatives is not a technical problem within a technical field. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Continuing on pages 21-22 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that “claims 1, 13, and 14, when considered as a whole, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application at least because claims 1, 13, and 14 recite elements that improve a technique for determining products that are ready to be replaced with updated products”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, as stated above that the potential lack of experience and knowledge of sales representatives is not a technical problem within a technical field. Citing MPEP 2106.05(a), Examiner asserts that the technical improvement argued by Applicant is analogous to, “Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017)” which the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Further on page 22 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “Applicant’s claims recite features related to a technical solution to a technical problem of determining when to replace a product with an updated product based on various considerations including a rated lifetime of the product. Accordingly, Applicant’s claims are directed to a product management technology that provides an improvement in the operational efficiency of a product by automatically determining when the product is ready for replacement with an updated product.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by asserting, as stated above, as stated above that the potential lack of experience and knowledge of sales representatives is not a technical problem within a technical field. Additionally, while Applicant argues that claims provide “an improvement in the operational efficiency of a product by automatically determining when the product is ready for replacement with an updated product”, Examiner asserts “[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”); Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.”). Therefore, the “automatically determining when the product is ready for replacement with an updated product” argument by Applicant is not sufficient to confer patent eligibility on the otherwise abstract idea of product management. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Beginning on page 22 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claims include significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Citing the decision of BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc., v. AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Corp., 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed Cir. 2016), Applicant argues “independent claims 1, 13, and 14 include additional elements that are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.” However, Applicant continues on pages 23-24 of the provided remarks, to list the entire amended claim as additional elements. Examiner cites MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) regarding the evaluation of additional elements, “Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h).” Examiner asserts that the citation of the entire claim as an additional element is not correct as the included “determining a priority potential client to be selected as a priority target of a sales activity to be performed at a certain timing”, “determining an estimated update timing”, “determining whether or not the certain timing is included in an estimated proposal period” and “selecting the potential client” are directed to the judicial exception. Therefore, the remaining additional elements are “displaying or outputting a priority potential client list representing information about the priority potential client of the certain timing” which are not analogous to the Inventive distribution of functionality within a network to filter Internet content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016). These steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 25-29, filed 1/15/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lopez (U.S 2018/0240181 A1) in view of Teplinksy (U.S 2018/0267506 A1).
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (method), 13 (non-transitory computer-readable medium), 14 (system), and dependent claims 2-12, and 15, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e. process), claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. manufacture), and claim 14 is directed to a system (i.e. machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite a sales assistance method executed by a computer configured by an executable program, the sales assistance method comprising: determining, from among potential clients, a priority potential client to be selected as a priority target of a sales activity to be performed at a certain timing; and displaying or outputting a priority potential client list representing information about the priority potential client of the certain timing, wherein for each of the potential clients, the determining the priority potential client includes: determining an estimated update timing which is an estimated timing determined based on considering a rated lifetime of a product currently owned by a potential client and whether the product currently owned is ready to be updated by replacing the product with an updated product, determining whether or not the certain timing is included in an estimated proposal period which is a period suitable to propose updating of the product to the potential client in order to update the product at the estimated update timing, and selecting the potential client such that the potential client is likely to be determined as the priority potential client for the certain timing, in a case where the certain timing is included in the estimated proposal period of the potential client (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are executing a sales assistance method involving determining, from among potential clients, a priority potential client to be selected as a priority target of a sales activity to be performed at a certain timing, which is commercial interactions in the form of sales activity. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are executing a sales assistance method, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are determining an estimated update timing which is an estimated timing determined based on considering a rated lifetime of a product currently owned by a potential client is to be updated; determining whether or not the certain timing is included in an estimated proposal period which is a period suitable to propose updating of the product to the potential client in order to update the product at the estimated update timing; and selecting the potential client such that the potential client is likely to be determined as the priority potential client for the certain timing, in a case where the certain timing is included in the estimated proposal period of the potential client, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgment, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are executing a sales assistance method, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
Dependent claim 4 recites “the determining the estimated update time includes applying the information representing the temperature to an Arrhenius equation.” This step/function discloses recites the abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts because the claimed limitation applies an Arrhenius equation which is a mathematical concept in the form of mathematical equations.
In addition, dependent claims 2-12 and 15 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the estimated update timing determination & calculation; the recommendation of updated timing; the priority potential client determination; the estimated consideration period; and the repair-cost attributed update proposal target determination. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include commercial interactions such as sales activity as well as mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “displaying or outputting a priority potential client list representing information about the priority potential client of the certain timing” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “a computer configured by an executable program; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a sales assistance program that is executable by a computer to configure the computer to perform operations; A sales assistance system comprising: a computer configured by an executable program to perform operations comprising; a sales record database, a product information database, a corporation database, and a determination database” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2-12 and 15 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 12 and 15 additionally recite “when information about a certain priority potential client included in the priority potential client list of the certain timing is to be displayed or output, information about an estimated update probability or post-delivery time of each product owned by the certain priority potential client and about a timing associated with the update probability or the post-delivery time is represented”; “access a sales record database, a product information database, a corporation database, and a determination database”; “the sales record database has client information data including client information about each of the potential clients”; “the product information database has product specification data including information about a specification of each product model number and client-owned-product data including information about a product currently owned by each of the potential clients”; “the corporation database has corporation data including corporation information about each of the potential clients”; and “the determination database has score information about each of the potential clients” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “a computer; a sales record database, a product information database, a corporation database, and a determination database” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “a computer configured by an executable program; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a sales assistance program that is executable by a computer to configure the computer to perform operations; A sales assistance system comprising: a computer configured by an executable program to perform operations comprising; a sales record database, a product information database, a corporation database, and a determination database” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 1-12; non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 13; and system claims 14-15 recite “a computer configured by an executable program; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a sales assistance program that is executable by a computer to configure the computer to perform operations; A sales assistance system comprising: a computer configured by an executable program to perform operations comprising; a sales record database, a product information database, a corporation database, and a determination database”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0078-0082 and Figure 2. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “displaying or outputting a priority potential client list representing information about the priority potential client of the certain timing” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-12 and 15 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 12 and 15 additionally recite “when information about a certain priority potential client included in the priority potential client list of the certain timing is to be displayed or output, information about an estimated update probability or post-delivery time of each product owned by the certain priority potential client and about a timing associated with the update probability or the post-delivery time is represented”; “access a sales record database, a product information database, a corporation database, and a determination database”; “the sales record database has client information data including client information about each of the potential clients”; “the product information database has product specification data including information about a specification of each product model number and client-owned-product data including information about a product currently owned by each of the potential clients”; “the corporation database has corporation data including corporation information about each of the potential clients”; and “the determination database has score information about each of the potential clients” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “a computer; a sales record database, a product information database, a corporation database, and a determination database” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez (U.S 2018/0240181 A1) in view of Teplinksy (U.S 2018/0267506 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Lopez discloses the following:
A sales assistance method executed by a computer configured by an executable program, the sales assistance method comprising [see at least Paragraph 0011 for reference to systems and processes for prioritizing orders for item delivery and maximizing a likelihood that items are to be delivered on time; Figures 1-3 and related text regarding the example system for prioritizing item delivery and maximizing the likelihood that items are delivered on time; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 202 ‘processor(s)’]
determining, from among potential clients, a priority potential client to be selected as a priority target of a sales activity to be performed at a certain timing [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to the orders being prioritized (i. e., prioritized orders) based on the user scores for the users that submitted the orders & the order prioritization module may prioritize orders within each batch, or may prioritize each of the orders; Paragraph 0074 for reference to prioritizing the order and additional orders based at least partly on the user score wherein the order may be placed in an order queue that includes other previously received orders from the other users; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 120 ‘prioritized orders’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 310 ‘Order Prioritization Module’ & 312 ‘Prioritized Orders’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 506 ‘PRIORITIZE THE ORDER AND ADDITIONAL ORDERS BASED AT LEAST PARTLY ON THE USER SCORE’; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘PRIORITIZE THE MULTIPLE ORDERS BASED AT LEAST PARTLY ON USER SCORES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MULTIPLE ORDERS’]
displaying or outputting a priority potential client list representing information about the priority potential client of the certain timing [see at least Paragraph 0078 for reference to upon selecting the fulfillment plan for the order, the service provider may provide order instructions to the merchant, where the order instructions may indicate what items to prepare/provide, a time in which to prepare the items, a time in which the deliverer is to pick up the items, and so on; Figure 1 and related text regarding items 124 ‘ORDER INSTRUCTIONS’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 124 ‘ORDER INSTRUCTIONS’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 514 ‘COORDINATE WITH A MERCHANT THAT IS TO PROVIDE THE ONE OR MORE ITEMS]
wherein for each of the potential clients, the determining the priority potential client includes: [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to order prioritization module may prioritize orders within each batch, or may prioritize each of the orders within the order queue with respect to one another; Paragraph 0047 for reference to the service provider generating fulfillment plans for each of the orders]
determining an estimated update timing which is an estimated timing when a product owned by a potential client is to be updated [see at least Paragraph 0088 for reference to the time interval being based on a number of orders received (e.g., a threshold number of orders) within a particular time period; Paragraph 0090 for reference to prior to the completion of the time interval, an additional order may be received and added to the orders that are associated with the time interval and that are stored in the order queue]
determining whether or not the certain timing is included in an estimated proposal period which is a period suitable to propose updating of the product to the potential client in order to update the product at the estimated update timing [see at least Paragraph 0042 for reference to provided that the orders are batched within the order queue , as additional orders are received within the time interval associated with a batch, the orders within that batch may be prioritized; Paragraph 0042 for reference to although the service provider may make additional efforts to delivery highly ranked orders in a timely manner, the service provider may also strive to deliver all other orders within the specified time period provided to users; Paragraph 0091 for reference to upon receiving the additional order, the orders within the time interval/batch may be re -prioritized in view of the user score associated with the user that placed the additional order; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 708 ‘UPDATE THE PRIORITIZED MULTIPLE ORDERS TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL ORDER BASED AT LEAST PARTLY ON A USER SCORE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADDITIONAL ORDER’]
selecting the potential client such that the potential client is likely to be determined as the priority potential client for the certain timing, in a case where the certain timing is included in the estimated proposal period of the potential client [see at least Paragraph 0092 for reference to re - prioritizing the orders within the batch, the service provider may cause the items associated with the highest priority order to be delivered to the user that placed that order; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 710 ‘CAUSE AND DELIVERY OF ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ORDER HAVING THE HIGHEST PRIORITY’]
While Lopez discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose determining an estimated update timing which is an estimated timing determined based on considering a rated lifetime of a product currently owned by a potential client and whether the product currently owned is ready to be updated by replacing the product with an updated product.
However, Teplinksy discloses the following:
determining an estimated update timing which is an estimated timing determined based on considering a rated lifetime of a product currently owned by a potential client and whether the product currently owned is ready to be updated by replacing the product with an updated product [see at least the present invention provides a method of augmenting reliability models with smart pairing data for enabling accurate determination of a product' s lifetime and for enabling the creation of a customized, more accurate unit - specific maintenance plan for manufactured products; Paragraph 0037 for reference to model augmenting system may perform one or more actions to accurately predict a lifetime of a product and/or create a customized maintenance plan for a product; Paragraph 0037 for reference to the refining of an estimation of a product’s lifetime and/or customize a maintenance plan for a product; Paragraph 0098 for reference to the augmented reliability model being used to determine a more accurate expected useful lifetime by modifying the expected useful lifetime based on reliability model; Paragraph 0098 for reference to if the maintenance plan for the population of products including product determined based on the reliability model requires replacement of component and/or every 5 years from the manufacturing date, the maintenance plan can be individually customized for product]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the determination of estimated timing of Lopez to include the consideration of rated lifetime of a product of Teplinksy. Doing so would allow a manufacturer to more accurately determine the usable lifetime of each, individual manufactured product, as stated by Teplinksy (Paragraph 0022).
Claim 2
While the combination of Lopez and Teplinksy disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 2, Lopez discloses the following:
wherein the determining the estimated update timing includes of determining estimated update time estimated as time between delivery, to the potential client, of the product owned by the potential client and updating of the product, on a basis of recommended update time set for the product and information representing an environmental status of a location where the product is installed [see at least Paragraph 0065 for reference to various extraneous factors influencing the delivery time, order objective for an order and/or the fulfillment plan including the weather & physical distance which corresponds to the physical distance between the physical location of the merchant and the physical location in which the items are to be delivered; Paragraph 0088 for reference to the time interval being based on a number of orders received (e.g., a threshold number of orders) within a particular time period; Paragraph 0090 for reference to prior to the completion of the time interval, an additional order may be received and added to the orders that are associated with the time interval and that are stored in the order queue; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 406 ‘Extraneous Factors’ including ‘physical distance’ and ‘weather’]
calculating the estimated update timing on a basis of information about a timing when the product has been delivered to the potential client and the estimated update time [see at least Paragraph 0088 for reference to the time interval being based on a number of orders received (e.g., a threshold number of orders) within a particular time period; Paragraph 0090 for reference to prior to the completion of the time interval, an additional order may be received and added to the orders that are associated with the time interval and that are stored in the order queue]
Claim 3
While the combination of Lopez and Teplinksy disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 3, Lopez discloses the following:
wherein the recommended update time of the product is set twice as large as the lifetime of the product [see at least Paragraph 0042 for reference to provided that the orders are batched within the order queue , as additional orders are received within the time interval associated with a batch, the orders within that batch may be prioritized; Paragraph 0042 for reference to although the service provider may make additional efforts to delivery highly ranked orders in a timely manner, the service provider may also strive to deliver all other orders within the specified time period provided to users; Paragraph 0091 for reference to upon receiving the additional order, the orders within the time interval/batch may be re -prioritized in view of the user score associated with the user that placed the additional order; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 708 ‘UPDATE THE PRIORITIZED MULTIPLE ORDERS TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL ORDER BASED AT LEAST PARTLY ON A USER SCORE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADDITIONAL ORDER’]
While Lopez discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein the recommended update time of the product is set as the rated lifetime of the product.
However, Teplinksy discloses the following:
wherein the recommended update time of the product is set as the rated lifetime of the product [see at least the present invention provides a method of augmenting reliability models with smart pairing data for enabling accurate determination of a product' s lifetime and for enabling the creation of a customized, more accurate unit - specific maintenance plan for manufactured products; Paragraph 0037 for reference to model augmenting system may perform one or more actions to accurately predict a lifetime of a product and/or create a customized maintenance plan for a product; Paragraph 0037 for reference to the refining of an estimation of a product’s lifetime and/or customize a maintenance plan for a product; Paragraph 0098 for reference to the augmented reliability model being used to determine a more accurate expected useful lifetime by modifying the expected useful lifetime based on reliability model]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the recommended update timing of Lopez to include the consideration of rated lifetime of a product of Teplinksy. Doing so would allow a manufacturer to more accurately determine the usable lifetime of each, individual manufactured product, as stated by Teplinksy (Paragraph 0022).
Claim 5
While the combination of Lopez and Teplinksy disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 5, Lopez discloses the following:
further comprising, for each of the potential clients, determining an estimated proposal deadline which is an estimated deadline for proposing updating of the product to the potential client, on a basis of the estimated update timing of the product and typical installation time which is typical time required for installation work to be performed when the product is updated [see at least Paragraph 0066 for reference to merchant information including preparation time which corresponds to the ability of the merchant to provide, prepare, cook, etc., items quickly; Paragraph 0066 for reference to merchant information including the fulfillment plan for the order; Paragraph 0088 for reference to the time interval being based on a number of orders received (e.g., a threshold number of orders) within a particular time period; Paragraph 0090 for reference to prior to the completion of the time interval, an additional order may be received and added to the orders that are associated with the time interval and that are stored in the order queue]
determining that the product owned by the potential client is a post-delivery-time-based update proposal target, in a case where the estimated proposal deadline of the product comes within predetermined time from the certain timing [see at least Paragraph 0047 for reference to if the first fulfillment plan indicates that delivery of the items is likely to occur 35 minutes after the order was received, and that a second fulfillment plan indicates that the delivery of the items is likely to occur 45 minutes after receiving the order]
determining whether or not the certain timing is included in an estimated consideration period which is an estimated period during which the potential client is likely to consider updating of the product, wherein the determining the estimated proposal period includes assessing that the certain timing is included in the estimated proposal period, in a case where the product owned by the potential client is a post-delivery-time-based update proposal target and the certain timing is included in the estimated consideration period [see at least Paragraph 0042 for reference to provided that the orders are batched within the order queue , as additional orders are received within the time interval associated with a batch, the orders within that batch may be prioritized; Paragraph 0042 for reference to although the service provider may make additional efforts to delivery highly ranked orders in a timely manner, the service provider may also strive to deliver all other orders within the specified time period provided to users; Paragraph 0091 for reference to upon receiving the additional order, the orders within the time interval/batch may be re -prioritized in view of the user score associated with the user that placed the additional order; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 708 ‘UPDATE THE PRIORITIZED MULTIPLE ORDERS TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL ORDER BASED AT LEAST PARTLY ON A USER SCORE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADDITIONAL ORDER’]
Claim 6
While the combination of Lopez and Teplinksy disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 6, Lopez discloses the following:
wherein the estimated consideration period is estimated on a basis of information representing a financial result timing of the potential client or information representing an estimated budget formulation timing [see at least Paragraph 0062 for reference to the order information may be utilized to prioritize previously received orders, generate and/or update fulfillment plans for the orders, and select fulfillment plans that are utilized to facilitate delivery of the items included in the orders wherein order information including the cost of items and/or the overall cost/price associated with the order]
Claim 7
While the combination of Lopez and Teplinksy disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 7, Lopez discloses the following:
wherein the certain timing corresponding to the priority potential client list can be set at an interval shorter than time that elapses from the estimated consideration period to the estimated budget formulation timing [see at least Paragraph 0062 for reference to the order information may be utilized to prioritize previously received orders, generate and/or update fulfillment plans for the orders, and select fulfillment plans that are utilized to facilitate delivery of the items included in the orders wherein order information including the cost of items and/or the overall cost/price associated with the order; Paragraph 0063 for reference to order information being utilized to determine the delivery time to be provided to the user]
Claim 10
While the combination of Lopez and Teplinksy disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 10, Lopez discloses the following:
wherein the selecting the potential client includes making a coefficient for correcting a pre-correction score associated with a certain potential client a relatively large value in a case where the certain potential client is selected such that the certain potential client is likely to be determined as the priority potential client [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the user score module generating user scores based on one or more user score factors; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 118 ‘user scores’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 302 ‘user score module’ and item 304 ‘user score factors’; Examiner notes the ‘user score factors’ as analogous to ‘coefficient for correcting a pre-correction score’]
the determining the priority potential client includes specifying the priority potential client by using a score that is associated with each of the potential clients and has been corrected with the coefficient [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to the orders being prioritized (i. e., prioritized orders) based on the user scores for the users that submitted the orders & the order prioritization module may prioritize orders within each batch, or may prioritize each of the orders; Paragraph 0074 for reference to prioritizing the order and additional orders based at least partly on the user score wherein the order may be placed in an order queue that includes other previously received orders from the other users; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 120 ‘prioritized orders’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 310 ‘Order Prioritization Module’ & 312 ‘Prioritized Orders’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 506 ‘PRIORITIZE THE ORDER AND ADDITIONAL ORDERS BASED AT LEAST PARTLY ON THE USER SCORE’; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘PRIORITIZE THE MULTIPLE ORDERS BASED AT LEAST PARTLY ON USER SCORES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MULTIPLE ORDERS’]
Claim 12
While the combination of Lopez and Teplinksy disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 12, Lopez discloses the following:
wherein when information about a certain priority potential client included in the priority potential client list of the certain timing is to be displayed or output, information about an estimated update probability or post-delivery time of each product owned by the certain priority potential client and about a timing associated with the update probability or the post-delivery time is represented [see at least Paragraph 0078 for reference to upon selecting the fulfillment plan for the order, the service provider may provide order instructions to the merchant, where the order instructions may indicate what items to prepare/provide, a time in which to prepare the items, a time in which the deliverer is to pick up the items, and so on; Figure 1 and related text regarding items 124 ‘ORDER INSTRUCTIONS’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 124 ‘ORDER INSTRUCTIONS’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 514 ‘COORDINATE WITH A MERCHANT THAT IS TO PROVIDE THE ONE OR MORE ITEMS]
the update probability represents an estimate of a probability that the product is to be updated before a timing associated with the update probability [see at least Paragraph 0043 for reference to the order objective being to maximize the probability or likelihood of satisfying a delivery promise made to the user when the user placed the order; Paragraph 0043 for reference to the order objective maximizing the likelihood that the items included in the order are delivered within a delivery window provided to the user or to maximize the likelihood that the items are delivered by a particular time]
the post-delivery time represents time that has elapsed from a timing when the product has been delivered to a timing associated with the post-delivery time [see at least Paragraph 0047 for reference to if the first fulfillment plan indicates that delivery of the items is likely to occur 35 minutes after the order was received, and that a second fulfillment plan indicates that the delivery of the items is likely to occur 45 minutes after receiving the order]
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, Lopez discloses the following:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a sales assistance program that is executable by a computer to configure the computer to perform operations comprising: [see at least Paragraph 0011 for reference to systems and processes for prioritizing orders for item delivery and maximizing a likelihood that items are to be delivered on time; Paragraph 0031 for reference to computer - readable media may include, or be associated with the one or more modules that perform various operations associated with the service provider and/or the content server(s); Figure 1 and related text regarding item 118 ‘computer-readable media’; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 204 ‘computer-readable media’]
determining, from among potential clients, a priority potential client to be selected as a priority target of a sales activity to be performed at a certain timing [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to the orders being prioritized (i. e., prioritized orders) based on the user scores for the users that submitted the orders & the order prioritization module may prioritize orders within each batch, or may prioritize each of the orders; Paragraph 0074 for reference to prioritizing the order and additional orders based at least partly on the user score wherein the order may be placed in an order queue that includes other previously received orders from the other users; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 120 ‘prioritized orders’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 310 ‘Order Prioritization Module’ & 312 ‘Prioritized Orders’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 506 ‘PRIORITIZE THE ORDER AND ADDITIONAL ORDERS BASED AT LEAST PARTLY ON THE USER SCORE’; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘PRIORITIZE THE MULTIPLE ORDERS BASED AT LEAST PARTLY ON USER SCORES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MULTIPLE ORDERS’]
displaying or outputting a priority potential client list representing information about the priority potential client of the certain timing [see at least Paragraph 0078 for reference to upon selecting the fulfillment plan for the order, the service provider may provide order instructions to the merchant, where the order instructions may indicate what items to prepare/provide, a time in which to prepare the items, a time in which the deliverer is to pick up the items, and so on; Figure 1 and related text regarding items 124 ‘ORDER INSTRUCTIONS’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 124 ‘ORDER INSTRUCTIONS’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 514 ‘COORDINATE WITH A MERCHANT THAT IS TO PROVIDE THE ONE OR MORE ITEMS]
wherein for each of the potential clients, the determining the priority potential client further includes [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to order prioritization module may prioritize orders within each batch, or may prioritize each of the orders within the order queue with respect to one another; Paragraph 0047 for reference to the service provider generating fulfillment plans for each of the orders]
determining an estimated update timing which is an estimated timing when a product owned by a potential client is to be updated [see at least Paragraph 0088 for reference to the time interval being based on a number of orders received (e.g., a threshold number of orders) within a particular time period; Paragraph 0090 for reference to prior to the completion of the time interval, an additional order may be received and added to the orders that are associated with the time interval and that are stored in the order queue]
determining whether or not the certain timing is included in an estimated proposal period which is a period suitable to propose updating of the product to the potential client in order to update the product at the estimated update timing [see at least Paragraph 0042 for reference to provided that the orders are batched within the order queue, as additional orders are received within the time interval associated with a batch, the orders within that batch may be prioritized; Paragraph 0042 for reference to although the service provider may make additional efforts to delivery highly ranked orders in a timely manner, the service provider may also strive to deliver all other orders within the specified time period provided to users; Paragraph 0091 for reference to upon receiving the additional order, the orders within the time interval/batch may be re -prioritized in view of the user score associated with the user that placed the additional order; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 708 ‘UPDATE THE PRIORITIZED MULTIPLE ORDERS TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL ORDER BASED AT LEAST PARTLY ON A USER SCORE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADDITIONAL ORDER’]
selecting the potential client such that the potential client is likely to be determined as the priority potential client for the certain timing, in a case where the certain timing is included in the estimated proposal period of the potential client [see at least Paragraph 0092 for reference to re - prioritizing the orders within the batch, the service provider may cause the items associated with the highest priority order to be delivered to the user that placed that order; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 710 ‘CAUSE AND DELIVERY OF ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ORDER HAVING THE HIGHEST PRIORITY’]
While Lopez discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose determining an estimated update timing which is an estimated timing determined based on considering a rated lifetime of a product currently owned by a potential client and whether the product currently owned is ready to be updated by replacing the product with an updated product.
However, Teplinksy discloses the following:
determining an estimated update timing which is an estimated timing determined based on considering a rated lifetime of a product currently owned by a potential client and whether the product currently owned is ready to be updated by replacing the product with an updated product [see at least the present invention provides a method of augmenting reliability models with smart pairing data for enabling accurate determination of a product' s lifetime and for enabling the creation of a customized, more accurate unit - specific maintenance plan for manufactured products; Paragraph 0037 for reference to model augmenting system may perform one or more actions to accurately predict a lifetime of a product and/or create a customized maintenance plan for a product; Paragraph 0037 for reference to the refining of an estimation of a product’s lifetime and/or customize a maintenance plan for a product; Paragraph 0098 for reference to the augmented reliability model being used to determine a more accurate expected useful lifetime by modifying the expected useful lifetime based on reliability model; Paragraph 0098 for reference to if the maintenance plan for the population of products including product determined based on the reliability model requires replacement of component and/or every 5 years from the manufacturing date, the maintenance plan can be individually customized for product]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the determination of estimated timing of Lopez to include the consideration of rated lifetime of a product of Teplinksy. Doing so would allow a manufacturer to more accurately determine the usable lifetime of each, individual manufactured product, as stated by Teplinksy (Paragraph 0022).
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14, Lopez discloses the following:
A sales assistance system comprising: a computer configured by an executable program to perform operations comprising [see at least Paragraph 0011 for reference to systems and processes for prioritizing orders for item delivery and maximizing a likelihood that items are to be delivered on time; Figures 1-3 and related text regarding the example system for prioritizing item delivery and maximizing the likelihood that items are delivered on time; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 202 ‘processor(s)’]
determining, from among potential clients, a priority potential client to be selected as a priority target of a sales activity to be performed at a certain timing [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to the orders being prioritized (i. e., prioritized orders) based on the user scores for the users that submitted the orders & the order prioritization module may prioritize orders within each batch, or may prioritize each of the orders; Paragraph 0074 for reference to prioritizing the order and additional orders based at least partly on the user score wherein the order may be placed in an order queue that includes other previously received orders from the other users; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 120 ‘prioritized orders’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 310 ‘Order Prioritization Module’ & 312 ‘Prioritized Orders’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 506 ‘PRIORITIZE THE ORDER AND ADDITIONAL ORDERS BASED AT LEAST PARTLY ON THE USER SCORE’; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘PRIORITIZE THE MULTIPLE ORDERS BASED AT LEAST PARTLY ON USER SCORES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MULTIPLE ORDERS’]
displaying or outputting a priority potential client list representing information about the priority potential client of the certain timing [see at least Paragraph 0078 for reference to upon selecting the fulfillment plan for the order, the service provider may provide order instructions to the merchant, where the order instructions may indicate what items to prepare/provide, a time in which to prepare the items, a time in which the deliverer is to pick up the items, and so on; Figure 1 and related text regarding items 124 ‘ORDER INSTRUCTIONS’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 124 ‘ORDER INSTRUCTIONS’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 514 ‘COORDINATE WITH A MERCHANT THAT IS TO PROVIDE THE ONE OR MORE ITEMS]
wherein for each of the potential clients, the determining the priority potential client further includes [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to order prioritization module may prioritize orders within each batch, or may prioritize each of the orders within the order queue with respect to one another; Paragraph 0047 for reference to the service provider generating fulfillment plans for each of the orders]
determining an estimated update timing which is an estimated timing when a product owned by a potential client is to be updated [see at least Paragraph 0088 for reference to the time interval being based on a number of orders received (e.g., a threshold number of orders) within a particular time period; Paragraph 0090 for reference to prior to the completion of the time interval, an additional order may be received and added to the orders that are associated with the time interval and that are stored in the order queue]
determining whether or not the certain timing is included in an estimated proposal period which is a period suitable to propose updating of the product to the potential client in order to update the product at the estimated update timing [see at least Paragraph 0042 for reference to provided that the orders are batched within the order queue , as additional orders are received within the time interval associated with a batch, the orders within that batch may be prioritized; Paragraph 0042 for reference to although the service provider may make additional efforts to delivery highly ranked orders in a timely manner, the service provider may also strive to deliver all other orders within the specified time period provided to users; Paragraph 0091 for reference to upon receiving the additional order, the orders within the time interval/batch may be re -prioritized in view of the user score associated with the user that placed the additional order; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 708 ‘UPDATE THE PRIORITIZED MULTIPLE ORDERS TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL ORDER BASED AT LEAST PARTLY ON A USER SCORE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADDITIONAL ORDER’]
selecting the potential client such that the potential client is likely to be determined as the priority potential client for the certain timing, in a case where the certain timing is included in the estimated proposal period of the potential client [see at least Paragraph 0092 for reference to re - prioritizing the orders within the batch, the service provider may cause the items associated with the highest priority order to be delivered to the user that placed that order; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 710 ‘CAUSE AND DELIVERY OF ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ORDER HAVING THE HIGHEST PRIORITY’]
While Lopez discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose determining an estimated update timing which is an estimated timing determined based on considering a rated lifetime of a product currently owned by a potential client and whether the product currently owned is ready to be updated by replacing the product with an updated product.
However, Teplinksy discloses the following:
determining an estimated update timing which is an estimated timing determined based on considering a rated lifetime of a product currently owned by a potential client and whether the product currently owned is ready to be updated by replacing the product with an updated product [see at least the present invention provides a method of augmenting reliability models with smart pairing data for enabling accurate determination of a product' s lifetime and for enabling the creation of a customized, more accurate unit - specific maintenance plan for manufactured products; Paragraph 0037 for reference to model augmenting system may perform one or more actions to accurately predict a lifetime of a product and/or create a customized maintenance plan for a product; Paragraph 0037 for reference to the refining of an estimation of a product’s lifetime and/or customize a maintenance plan for a product; Paragraph 0098 for reference to the augmented reliability model being used to determine a more accurate expected useful lifetime by modifying the expected useful lifetime based on reliability model; Paragraph 0098 for reference to if the maintenance plan for the population of products including product determined based on the reliability model requires replacement of component and/or every 5 years from the manufacturing date, the maintenance plan can be individually customized for product]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the determination of estimated timing of Lopez to include the consideration of rated lifetime of a product of Teplinksy. Doing so would allow a manufacturer to more accurately determine the usable lifetime of each, individual manufactured product, as stated by Teplinksy (Paragraph 0022).
Claim 15
While the combination of Lopez and Teplinksy disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 15, Lopez discloses the following:
wherein the sales assistance system is configured access a sales record database, a product information database, a corporation database, and a determination database [see at least Paragraph 0033 for reference to the content servers storing various modules; Figures 1-3 and related text regarding item 114 ‘content servers’]
the sales record database has client information data including client information about each of the potential clients [see at least Paragraph 0056 for reference to user information including various information to determine a user score for a user and to determine how to prioritize orders placed by various users; Paragraph 0061 for reference to the user information including demographic information; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 402 ‘User Information’]
the product information database has product specification data including information about a specification of each product model number and client-owned-product data including information about a product currently owned by each of the potential clients [see at least Paragraph 0062 for reference to order information including an identity of the particular items that were ordered (i. e., items ordered), the delivery time or delivery window that was provided to the user that placed the order (i. e., delivery time), the type of items (e. g., food items, the type of food items, etc.), the number of items in the order (i. e., number of items), the amount of time needed to prepare or provide the items (i. e., preparation time), whether any coupons or promotions are being used with respect to the order (i. e., coupons), the cost of the items included in the order, the price of the items included in the order; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 404 ‘order information’]
the corporation database has corporation data including corporation information about each of the potential clients [see at least Paragraph 0066 for reference to merchant information including a merchant score indicating the quality of the merchant, accuracy, and reliability of the merchant; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 408 ‘merchant information’]
the determination database has score information about each of the potential clients [see at least Paragraph 0056 for reference to user information including various information to determine a user score for a user and to determine how to prioritize orders placed by various users; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 402 ‘user information’ including ‘user score’]
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez (U.S 2018/0240181 A1) in view of Teplinksy (U.S 2018/0267506 A1), as applied in claim 2, in view of Burchell (U.S 2007/0273507 A1).
Claim 4
While the combination of Lopez and Teplinksy disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 4, Lopez discloses the following:
wherein the information representing the environmental status of the location where the product is installed includes information representing a temperature of the location where the product is installed [see at least Paragraph 0063 for reference to Paragraph 0065 for reference to various extraneous factors influencing the delivery time, order objective for an order and/or the fulfillment plan including the weather & physical distance which corresponds to the physical distance between the physical location of the merchant and the physical location in which the items are to be delivered; Paragraph 0088 for reference to the time interval being based on a number of orders received (e.g., a threshold number of orders) within a particular time period; Paragraph 0090 for reference to prior to the completion of the time interval, an additional order may be received and added to the orders that are associated with the time interval and that are stored in the order queue; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 406 ‘Extraneous Factors’ including ‘physical distance’ and ‘weather’]
While Lopez discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose the determining the estimated update time includes applying the information representing the temperature to an Arrhenius equation.
However, Burchell discloses the following:
determining the estimated update time includes applying the information representing the temperature to an Arrhenius equation [see at least Paragraph 0031 for reference to shelf-life parameters and determinations of goods including calculations based upon Arrhenius equations depending upon the quality concerns of the perishable producer]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the extraneous factors of delivery time of Lopez to include the temperature measurement applied to an Arrhenius equation of Burchell. Doing so would indicate the “freshness”, perishability, or “shelf-life' of an item, and/or to provide logistics and inventory management to RFID tracking and tracing of products, as stated by Burchell (Paragraph 0024).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez (U.S 2018/0240181 A1) in view of Teplinksy (U.S 2018/0267506 A1), as applied in claim 1, in view of Saneyoshi (U.S 2020/0058081 A1).
Claim 8
While the combination of Lopez and Teplinksy discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein the determining the priority potential client includes, for each of the potential clients, determining that the product owned by the potential client is a repair-cost-based update proposal target, in a case where information representing a maintenance status of the product represents a predetermined status; determining whether or not the certain timing is included in an estimated consideration period which is an estimated period during which the potential client is likely to consider updating of the product; assessing that the certain timing is included in a repair-cost-attributed estimated proposal period, in a case where the product owned by the potential client is a repair-cost-based update proposal target and the certain timing is included in the estimated consideration period; and selecting the potential client such that the potential client is likely to be determined as the priority potential client for the certain timing, in a case where the certain timing is included in the repair-cost-attributed estimated proposal period of the potential client.
Regarding Claim 8, Saneyoshi discloses the following:
wherein the determining the priority potential client includes, for each of the potential clients, determining that the product owned by the potential client is a repair-cost-based update proposal target, in a case where information representing a maintenance status of the product represents a predetermined status [see at least Paragraph 0077 for reference to the storage apparatus including facility maintenance management information (periodic maintenance time for facility (ies) and production line (s), time when a facility part (s) are replaced, etc.) in the production information or separately therefrom; Figure 12 and related text regarding item 124 ‘product delivery plans and priority in the entire factory (customers tolerance towards late delivery’ and item 127 ‘maintenance information’]
determining whether or not the certain timing is included in an estimated consideration period which is an estimated period during which the potential client is likely to consider updating of the product [see at least Paragraph 0249 for reference to the repair determination section predicting when a deterioration of the facility exceeds the allowable limit, wherein the time interval of the periodic maintenance temporally overlaps with a time interval (grace period) between the failure sign detection point and the maintenance time limit]
assessing that the certain timing is included in a repair-cost-attributed estimated proposal period, in a case where the product owned by the potential client is a repair-cost-based update proposal target and the certain timing is included in the estimated consideration period [see at least Paragraph 0141 for reference to the recovery plan creation section can generate a recovery plan which can anticipate not only production cost but also a change after repair completion, and with which an overall production evaluation indicator will become higher, and that anticipates not only production cost but also changes after repair completion]
selecting the potential client such that the potential client is likely to be determined as the priority potential client for the certain timing, in a case where the certain timing is included in the repair-cost-attributed estimated proposal period of the potential client [see at least Paragraph 0169 for reference to if the information item includes a repair time provided by the facility manufacturer then the information item may be given the highest priority]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Lopez to include the repair cost and maintenance status information of Saneyoshi. Doing so would present a better recovery plant for a facility failure from a point of view of, for instance, production management, as stated by Saneyoshi (Paragraph 0021).
Claim 9
While the combination of Lopez, Teplinksy, and Saneyoshi disclose the limitations above, Lopez does not disclose wherein the determining the repair-cost-attributed update proposal target includes determining that the information representing the maintenance status of the product represents the predetermined status, in a case where the information representing the maintenance status of the product represents that a repair cost of the product in a predetermined period is equal to or greater than an expense for periodic maintenance of the product in the predetermined period or represents that a number of times of failures of the product in the predetermined period is equal to or greater than a predetermined number of times.
Regarding Claim 9, Saneyoshi discloses the following:
wherein the determining the repair-cost-attributed update proposal target includes determining that the information representing the maintenance status of the product represents the predetermined status, in a case where the information representing the maintenance status of the product represents that a repair cost of the product in a predetermined period is equal to or greater than an expense for periodic maintenance of the product in the predetermined period or represents that a number of times of failures of the product in the predetermined period is equal to or greater than a predetermined number of times [see at least Paragraph 0077 for reference to the storage apparatus including facility maintenance management information (periodic maintenance time for facility (ies) and production line (s), time when a facility part (s) are replaced, etc.) in the production information or separately therefrom; Paragraph 0141 for reference to the recovery plan creation section can generate a recovery plan which can anticipate not only production cost but also a change after repair completion, and with which an overall production evaluation indicator will become higher, and that anticipates not only production cost but also changes after repair completion; Figure 12 and related text regarding item 124 ‘product delivery plans and priority in the entire factory (customers tolerance towards late delivery’ and item 127 ‘maintenance information’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Lopez to include the repair cost and maintenance status information of Saneyoshi. Doing so would present a better recovery plant for a facility failure from a point of view of, for instance, production management, as stated by Saneyoshi (Paragraph 0021).
Claim 11
While the combination of Lopez and Teplinksy disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 11, Lopez discloses the following:
wherein the determining the priority potential client includes, for each of the potential clients, determining an estimated proposal deadline which is an estimated deadline for proposing updating of the product to the potential client, on a basis of the estimated update timing of the product and typical installation time which is typical time required for installation work to be performed when the product is updated [see at least Paragraph 0066 for reference to merchant information including preparation time which corresponds to the ability of the merchant to provide, prepare, cook, etc., items quickly; Paragraph 0066 for reference to merchant information including the fulfillment plan for the order; Paragraph 0088 for reference to the time interval being based on a number of orders received (e.g., a threshold number of orders) within a particular time period; Paragraph 0090 for reference to prior to the completion of the time interval, an additional order may be received and added to the orders that are associated with the time interval and that are stored in the order queue]
determining that the product owned by the potential client is a post-delivery-time-based update proposal target, in a case where the estimated proposal deadline of the product comes within predetermined time from the certain timing [see at least Paragraph 0047 for reference to if the first fulfillment plan indicates that delivery of the items is likely to occur 35 minutes after the order was received, and that a second fulfillment plan indicates that the delivery of the items is likely to occur 45 minutes after receiving the order]
calculating a pre-correction score associated with the potential client, by adding a score for each preset item, in which a score with a relatively large value is given to the potential client in a case where the product owned by the potential client is determined as a post-delivery-time-based update proposal target or is determined as a repair-cost-based update proposal target [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the user score module generating user scores based on one or more user score factors; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 118 ‘user scores’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 302 ‘user score module’ and item 304 ‘user score factors’; Examiner notes the ‘user score factors’ as analogous to ‘coefficient for correcting a pre-correction score’]
the selecting the potential client includes a coefficient for correcting a pre-correction score associated with a certain potential client a relatively large value in a case where the certain potential client is selected such that the certain potential client is likely to be determined as the priority potential client for a reason attributable to post-delivery time [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the user score module generating user scores based on one or more user score factors; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 118 ‘user scores’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 302 ‘user score module’ and item 304 ‘user score factors’; Examiner notes the ‘user score factors’ as analogous to ‘coefficient for correcting a pre-correction score’]
the determining the priority potential client includes specifying the priority potential client by using a score that is associated with each of the potential clients and has been corrected with the coefficient [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to the orders being prioritized (i. e., prioritized orders) based on the user scores for the users that submitted the orders & the order prioritization module may prioritize orders within each batch, or may prioritize each of the orders; Paragraph 0074 for reference to prioritizing the order and additional orders based at least partly on the user score wherein the order may be placed in an order queue that includes other previously received orders from the other users; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 120 ‘prioritized orders’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 310 ‘Order Prioritization Module’ & 312 ‘Prioritized Orders’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 506 ‘PRIORITIZE THE ORDER AND ADDITIONAL ORDERS BASED AT LEAST PARTLY ON THE USER SCORE’; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘PRIORITIZE THE MULTIPLE ORDERS BASED AT LEAST PARTLY ON USER SCORES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MULTIPLE ORDERS’]
While Lopez discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose determining that the product owned by the potential client is a repair-cost-based update proposal target, in a case where information representing a maintenance status of the product represents a predetermined status or making a coefficient for correcting a pre-correction score associated with a certain potential client a relatively large value in a case where the certain potential client is selected such that the certain potential client is likely to be determined as the priority potential client for a reason attributable to a repair cost.
However, Saneyoshi discloses the following:
determining that the product owned by the potential client is a repair-cost-based update proposal target, in a case where information representing a maintenance status of the product represents a predetermined status [see at least Paragraph 0077 for reference to the storage apparatus including facility maintenance management information (periodic maintenance time for facility (ies) and production line (s), time when a facility part (s) are replaced, etc.) in the production information or separately therefrom; Figure 12 and related text regarding item 124 ‘product delivery plans and priority in the entire factory (customers tolerance towards late delivery’ and item 127 ‘maintenance information’]
making a coefficient for correcting a pre-correction score associated with a certain potential client a relatively large value in a case where the certain potential client is selected such that the certain potential client is likely to be determined as the priority potential client for a reason attributable to a repair cost [see at least Paragraph 0080 for reference to the recovery plan creation section may calculate the production evaluation indicator by calculating (or predicting/estimating) delivery - time achievement rate and production cost (for instance energy consumption) based on the production information of a plurality of production lines; Paragraph 0080 for reference to recovery plan creation section may present at least one recovery plan in which the calculated production evaluation indicator satisfies parameters or a best recovery plan]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Lopez to include the repair cost and maintenance status information of Saneyoshi. Doing so would present a better recovery plant for a facility failure from a point of view of, for instance, production management, as stated by Saneyoshi (Paragraph 0021).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hao, Li, et al. "Residual life prediction of multistage manufacturing processes with interaction between tool wear and product quality degradation." IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 14.2 (2016): 1211-1224.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2016/0316317 A1
Mayiras et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR UTILIZING INFORMATION FROM AN RFID TAG ASSOCIATED WITH AN ARTICLE
US 2008/0082411 A1
Jensen et al.
Consumer Targeting Methods, Systems, And Computer Program Products Using Multifactorial Marketing Models
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM EST.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624