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 . Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is to an apparatus (i.e., a machine) and claim 11 to a method (i.e., a process), which pass Step 1. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claim 1 is:
generate diagnostic data associated with the electronic product and transmit the diagnostic data;
receive a media access control (MAC) address associated with the electronic product,
receive product state information that is determined by the electronic product based on at least one of an operational condition or an environmental condition of the electronic product, the product state information comprising at least one of a temperature, an operation state, or a state indicative of whether a door of the electronic product is open or closed,
obtain product identification information based on the MAC address, and
determine, based on the product state information and the product identification information, a diagnostic outcome regarding a condition or a quality of the electronic product, and
transmit the diagnostic outcome to thereby provide a repair service regarding the electronic product.
The abstract idea of claim 11 is:
receiving a media access control (MAC) address associated with an electronic product;
receiving product state information that is determined by the electronic product based on at least one of an operational condition or an environmental condition of the electronic product, the product state information comprising at least one of a temperature, an operation state, or a state indicative of whether a door of the electronic product is open or closed,
obtaining product identification information based on the MAC address;
determining, based on the product state information and the product identification information, a diagnostic outcome regarding a condition or a quality of the electronic product; and
transmitting the diagnostic outcome to thereby provide a repair service regarding the electronic product.
The abstract idea steps italicized above are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. The steps describe, at a high level, determining a state of an electronic product, generating product state information, transmitting product state information and a MAC address, obtaining product identification information based on the MAC address, and analyzing the product state information based on the MAC address to determine diagnostics for the electronic product. These are steps an administrator could perform mentally and/or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above describe an after-sales service process between parties, one that culminates in determining a diagnostic outcome regarding a condition or a quality of the electronic product,, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity. This is further supported by [0002] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above describe the rules or instructions for an after-sales service process between parties, one that culminates in determining a diagnostic outcome regarding a condition or a quality of the electronic product, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by [0002] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: a service providing apparatus; a communicator configured to communicate with an electronic product, a user terminal, a manufacturing server, and a repairer terminal; a controller; from the user terminal; from the electronic product or the user terminal; from the manufacturing server; to the repairer terminal.
Claim 11 recites the following additional elements: performed by a service providing apparatus; from a user terminal; from the electronic product or the user terminal; by the service providing apparatus from a manufacturing server; to a repairer terminal.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in Fig. 2 and the corresponding disclosure of applicant’s specification as filed, especially [0040]-[0046].
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a generic computing system, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, when viewed in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further narrow the abstract idea with additional steps and/or information. Some of the dependent claims recite further additional elements (claims 2 and 12: wherein the electronic product comprises a refrigerator; claims 9 and 19: based on a quick response (QR) code or a barcode displayed on an identifier attached onto the electronic product). These additional elements do no more than elaborate on the field of use. Per MPEP 2106.05(h), this does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more, whether viewed alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chen (US 20190324078) in view of Davis (US 10229394).
Claim 1
Chen discloses:
A service providing apparatus {device or apparatus described in [0002] and [0116]-[0117]; also see Fig. 4}, comprising:
wherein the service providing apparatus is configured to:
receive, from the user terminal, a media access control (MAC) address associated with the electronic product {user terminal that transmits MAC address associated with the electronic product for receipt by server represented by signal receiver 401 and/or transmitter 403, described in [0134]-[0137]},
receive, from the electronic product or the user terminal, product state information that is determined by the electronic product based on at least one of an operational condition or an environmental condition of the electronic product {receive product state information based on an operational condition indicated via transmission of fault processing request that includes fault of household applicant, i.e., an operational condition, described in [0137]}, the product state information comprising at least one of a temperature, an operation state, or a state indicative of whether a door of the electronic product is open or closed {See [0137]},
obtain, from the manufacturing server, product identification information based on the MAC address {product identification information based on MAC address indicated in [0071], which states that the MAC address of each household appliance can be used as the index to query the operating state parameter, the part batch, the fault category and other information corresponding to the household appliance, i.e., product identification information}.
Chen doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Davis, in a similar field of endeavor directed customer service of home appliances, teaches:
a communicator configured to communicate with an electronic product, a user terminal, a manufacturing server, and a repairer terminal {represented by I/O circuit 234, which interfaces with an electronic product, a client device or user terminal, an operational database or server, and a repairer terminal; col. 7, lines 34-60; also see Fig. 1};
a controller configured to generate diagnostic data associated with the electronic product and transmit the diagnostic data to the repairer terminal {smart home controller 120 generates and transmits diagnostic data to a repairer terminal, as described in col. 9, lines 1-21 and lines 45-60};
determine, based on the product state information and the product identification information, a diagnostic outcome regarding a condition or a quality of the electronic product {See previous citation to col. 9, lines 1-21 and lines 45-60}; and
transmit the diagnostic outcome to the repairer terminal to thereby provide a repair service regarding the electronic product {See previous citation to col. 9, lines 1-21 and lines 45-60}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chen to include the features of Davis. Given that Chen is directed to monitoring household appliances for faults, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the features of Davis, in order to facilitate sharing diagnostic information with repair service providers to expedite repair {Col. 1, lines 20-30 of Davis}.
Claims 3 and 13
Chen further discloses: wherein the product identification information includes at least one of a model name or a serial number {the first 9 bits of the machine code represent the household appliance type; the 10th to 11th bits represent the part batch; the 12th to 13th bits represent the production plant and line body; the 14th to 16th bits represent the production date; and the 17th to 20th bits represent a serial number of the machine in the part batch. See [0093]}.
Claims 4 and 14
Chen further discloses: communicate with the manufacturing server that stores a manufacturing history of the electronic product, the manufacturing history comprising at least one of a manufacturing date, a manufacturing location, a manufacturing line, or information associated with a manufacturing process of the electronic product {machine codes of the plurality of household appliances are acquired, and the machine codes include household appliance types, production plants and line bodies, production dates and part batches. See [0090]}.
Davis further teaches: the communicator is configured to communicate {see previous citations to col. 7, lines 34-60, Fig. 1}.
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Davis is the same as set forth previously.
Claims 5 and 15
Chen further discloses: configured to receive, from the manufacturing server, a manufacturing history of the electronic product associated with the MAC address {since the MAC address of each household appliance is unique in the database, the MAC address of each household appliance can be used as the index to query the operating state parameter, the part batch, the fault category and other information corresponding to the household appliance, i.e., receive a manufacturing history of the electronic product associated with the MAC address. See [0071]}.
Davis further teaches: the communicator {see previous citations to col. 7, lines 34-60, Fig. 1}.
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Davis is the same as set forth previously.
Claims 6 and 16
Chen further discloses: configured to transmit information regarding a service to the repairer terminal {the cloud transmits the fault report message to the after-sales system, i.e. a repairer terminal, and notifies the after-sales system of the after-sales service of the household appliance, i.e. transmit information regarding a service to the repairer terminal. See [0108]}.
Davis further teaches: the communicator {see previous citations to col. 7, lines 34-60, Fig. 1}.
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Davis is the same as set forth previously.
Claims 7 and 17
Chen further discloses: wherein the information regarding the service comprises at least one of a user identification information, a repair date, a location, or details of a repair {at step S305, the cloud transmits a fault report message to an after-sales system, i.e., information regarding the service comprises at least one of the user identification information, a repair date, a location, or details of a repair, and the fault report message carries the fault category. See [0108]}.
Claims 8 and 18
Chen further discloses: wherein the details of the repair comprises the product identification information or information regarding a part needed for the repair {See [0108]}.
Claims 10 and 20
Chen further discloses: configured to, through the user terminal, receive the MAC address and the product state information {user terminal described with respect to user interacting with mobile application (APP) for inputting MAC address. See [0105]}.
Davis further teaches: the communicator {see previous citations to col. 7, lines 34-60, Fig. 1}.
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Davis is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 11
Chen discloses:
A service providing method performed by a service providing apparatus {See previous citations to [0002], [0116]-[0117], and Fig. 4, where method also described}, the method comprising:
receiving, from a user terminal, a media access control (MAC) address associated with an electronic product {user terminal that transmits MAC address associated with the electronic product for receipt by server represented by signal receiver 401 and/or transmitter 403, described in [0134]-[0137]};
receiving, from the electronic product or the user terminal, product state information that is determined by the electronic product based on at least one of an operational condition or an environmental condition of the electronic product {receiving product state information based on an operational condition indicated via transmission of fault processing request that includes fault of household applicant, i.e., an operational condition, described in [0137]}, the product state information comprising at least one of a temperature, an operation state, or a state indicative of whether a door of the electronic product is open or closed {See [0137]};
obtaining, from a manufacturing server, product identification information based on the MAC address {product identification information based on MAC address indicated in [0071], which states that the MAC address of each household appliance can be used as the index to query the operating state parameter, the part batch, the fault category and other information corresponding to the household appliance, i.e., product identification information}.
Chen doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Davis, in a similar field of endeavor directed customer service of home appliances, teaches:
determining, based on the product state information and the product identification information, a diagnostic outcome regarding a condition or a quality of the electronic product {smart home controller 120 facilitates determining a diagnostic outcome regarding a condition of the electronic product, based on the product state information and the product identification information, as described in col. 9, lines 1-21 and lines 45-60}, and
transmitting, to a repairer terminal, the diagnostic outcome to thereby provide a repair service regarding the electronic product {See previous citation to col. 9, lines 1-21 and lines 45-60}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chen to include the features of Davis. Given that Chen is directed to monitoring household appliances for faults, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the features of Davis, in order to facilitate sharing diagnostic information with repair service providers to expedite repair {Col. 1, lines 20-30 of Davis}.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chen and Davis, further in view of Jung (US 20170276426).
Claims 2 and 12
The combination of Chen and Davis doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Jung, in a similar field of endeavor directed to home appliances, teaches: wherein the electronic product comprises a refrigerator, and wherein the product state information comprises at least one of a refrigerator temperature, a freezer temperature, a time or duration indicative of when a door of the refrigerator is opened and closed, information regarding an operation of a compressor of the refrigerator, a state of ice, or a frost removal cycle and state of the refrigerator {state data or information of the refrigerator including temperature is monitored. See [0140]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Chen and Davis to include the features of Jung. Given that Chen is directed to monitoring household appliances, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the features of Jung, in order to facilitate identifying the source of failure in the appliance {[0009] of Jung}.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chen and Davis, further in view of Carpenter (US 20210051197).
Claims 9 and 19
Davis further teaches: the communicator is configured to communicate {see previous citations to col. 7, lines 34-60, Fig. 1}.
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Davis is the same as set forth previously.
The combination of Chen and Davis doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Carpenter, in a similar field of endeavor directed to IoT device support, teaches: communicate with the manufacturer server that is configured to, based on a quick response (QR) code or a barcode displayed on an identifier attached onto the electronic product, obtain the product identification information that comprises the MAC address of the electronic product {the QR code 110 can comprise a network address such as an IP address or a MAC address, including secure sign-on information, of the technical system 250. See [0030]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Chen and Davis to include the features of Carpenter. Given that Chen is directed to monitoring household appliances, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the features of Carpenter, in order to facilitate accessing appliance-/product-related information {[0025] of Carpenter}.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 2/27/26 have been fully considered. Examiner’s response follows, where applicant’s headings have been used for consistency.
Claim Objections; Claim Interpretation
In view of applicant’s amendments, the previous claim objections, interpretation(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101
In view of applicant’s amendments, which modified the scope of claim 1 significantly, examiner revisited the question of eligibility for claims 1-10 and found them ineligible. For claim 1 in particular, applicant canceled features that amounted to a particular arrangement of additional elements that integrated any alleged abstract idea into practical application/added significantly more, replacing with abstract steps and generic computing components that merely facilitate said steps.
Dependent claims 2-10, which were amended either directly or indirectly via their dependency on claim 1, were also reevaluated in light of applicant’s amendments and found to be ineligible. Examiner directs applicant to the eligibility analysis above.
Regarding applicant’s arguments, applicant offers on page 8 of the remarks:
In contrast, amended claim 11 recites a specific service (e.g., after-sales service, repair service) providing method for the electronic product, which enables "provision of various after- sales services with more accuracy." See Instant Specification, [0005]. For example, the service providing apparatus performs, among other things, [1] determining, based on the state (e.g., "at least one of an operational condition or an environmental condition") of the electronic product, product state information, [2] obtaining the product identification information based on the MAC address, [3] determining, based on the product state information and the product identification information, a diagnostic outcome regarding a condition or a quality of the electronic product, and [4] transmitting the diagnostic outcome to the repairer terminal to thereby provide a repair service regarding the electronic product.
This is an improvement over conventional technology including tangible device(s) and far from a mental process. For example, the claim features recite complex operations such as [1] determining, based on the state (e.g., "at least one of an operational condition or an environmental condition") of the electronic product, product state information, and [2] determining, based on the product state information and the product identification information, a diagnostic outcome regarding a condition or a quality of the electronic product. These operations require real-time processing, generation, and control of data and direct interaction with at the electronic product and service providing apparatus. These operations involve a level of computational complexity that goes beyond what can be practically performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the claims "do not recite a mental process." See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) (citing SRIInt'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
While well taken, examiner’s position is that applicant has conflated the abstract idea, considered at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. The abstract idea of the claimed invention includes (claim 11 being representative):
receiving a media access control (MAC) address associated with an electronic product;
receiving product state information that is determined by the electronic product based on at least one of an operational condition or an environmental condition of the electronic product, the product state information comprising at least one of a temperature, an operation state, or a state indicative of whether a door of the electronic product is open or closed,
obtaining product identification information based on the MAC address;
determining, based on the product state information and the product identification information, a diagnostic outcome regarding a condition or a quality of the electronic product; and
transmitting the diagnostic outcome to thereby provide a repair service regarding the electronic product.
There’s nothing inherently technical or complex about these steps, which may be performed by individuals conducting an after-sales process. An administrator could receive product state information and product identification associated with a MAC address, and, determine, based on the product state information and the product identification information, a diagnostic outcome to be transmitted to a repair service provider.
Applicant continues:
Further, even assuming the claims involve abstract idea, as asserted by the Office Action, under Prong Two, the claims integrate the concept into a practical application. The Federal Circuit has emphasized the importance of a meaningful "directed to" inquiry and has held that improvements in technology may demonstrate patent eligibility, even if at some level they may involve an abstract idea. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considering amended claim 11 as a whole demonstrates that, even if it is assumed that the claim recites an abstract idea, which it does not, the claim integrates the purported judicial exception into a practical application. Amended claim 11 solves a particular technological problem in in after-sales service of electronic products, such as difficulties in accurately identifying an electronic product and timely providing appropriate after-sales services (including repair services) for the electronic product. See Instant Specification, [0002]-[0007]. Amended claim 11 recites a combination of additional elements to solve this problem, including [1] determining, based on the state of the electronic product, product state information, [2] obtaining the product identification information based on the MAC address, [3] determining, based on the product state information and the product identification information, a diagnostic outcome regarding a condition or a quality of the electronic product, and [4] transmitting the diagnostic outcome to the repairer terminal to thereby provide a repair service regarding the electronic product.
Using the disclosed service providing method, accurate and timely after-sales services can be provided by determining the diagnostic outcome regarding a condition or a quality of the electronic product based on product state information, and by transmitting the diagnostic outcome to a repairer terminal to thereby enable proper repair or replacement actions. See id., [0005]-[0013], [0061]. Amended claim 11 provides a particular manner of providing after-sales services by at least [1] generating product state information based on the state of the electronic product, [2] determining a diagnostic outcome regarding a condition or a quality of the electronic product based on the product state information and the product identification information, and [3] transmitting the diagnostic outcome to the repairer terminal to thereby provide a repair service regarding the electronic product.
Contrary to applicant’s assertions, examiner has found no evidence of an improvement to the technology via the additional elements, whether viewed alone or as an ordered combination. Instead, applicant has recited additional elements that are generic computers or machinery, claimed in a results-oriented manner, and simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f) is clear, however, that simply reciting the idea of a solution or outcome, as opposed to the details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, is equivalent to “apply it”:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
[…]
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
In other words, applicant has not provided for any improvement to technology or a technical field, as described in the various court decisions cited above; instead, applicant is simply using generically described machinery to facilitate an after-sales process. While applicant may potentially arrive at an improved abstract idea, this is not the same as an improvement to the technology.
Applicant continues:
As described above, Applicant's claims are not directed to an abstract idea, so the "significantly more" inquiry under Step 2B of Alice/Mayo is unnecessary. Nevertheless, the claims also amount to "significantly more" than any alleged "abstract idea."
The Office Action concludes under Step 2B that the claims do not include additional elements that alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Office Action at pp. 8, 9. For example, the service providing apparatus being configured to determine, based on the product state information [e.g., a temperature, an operation state, a state indicative of whether a door of the electronic product is open or closed] and the product identification information, a diagnostic outcome regarding a condition or a quality of the electronic product, and configured to transmit the diagnostic outcome to the repairer terminal to thereby provide a repair service regarding the electronic product is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Therefore, the combination of features described above is not well-understood, routine, or conventional such that amended claim 11 recites "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea.
For these reasons, amended claim 11 is not "directed to" an abstract idea and, even if it is, the claim integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application of automated after-sales repair service provision for electronic products and recites "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under § 101, and submits that these claims are in condition for allowance.
With respect to applicant’s remarks concerning Step 2B, examiner reiterates that the conclusion was informed by MPEP 2106.05, subsection II, which states:
Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h);
Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). (Examiner’s highlight.)
As seen in the second bullet point above, examiner “carried over” the conclusion from Step 2A Prong Two, where it was determined that the additional elements, whether viewed alone or in combination, do no more than facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 103
Applicant’s remarks are predicated on the present amendments and the previously applied Uchino. These arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by applicant’s amendment. Examiner directs applicant to the claim analysis above.
In summary, examiner has responded to all of applicant’s remarks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20020128728, which teaches: A remote maintenance system 100 in which a center server 120 that is located in a service center for performing maintenance of an electrical appliance 102 and a home server 101 that is located in each house and monitors a status of the electrical appliance 102 in the house are connected via a communication network 140, wherein (A) the home server 101 includes an electrical appliance management unit 108 that acquires a status value of the electrical appliance 102, a communication unit 105 that receives from the center server 120 a failure model which is information defining a method of deriving a decision whether the electrical appliance 102 is failed or not from the status value, and a failure deciding unit 106 that decides whether the electrical appliance is failed or not based on the acquired status value and the received failure model using qualitative reasoning, and (B) the center server 120 includes a failure model updating unit 127 that updates a failure model and send the updated failure model to the home server 101 via a communication unit 125.
US 20100100259, which teaches: The present invention provides a fault diagnosis device for optimizing maintenance measures in a system, in particular a flying object. The diagnosis device has a storage unit for storing diagnosis rules, which each have a fault condition indicating the presence of a fault, and a fault conclusion formed by logical combinations of potential fault causes of the respective fault. Furthermore, a logic unit is provided, which logically combines those stored fault conclusions whose associated fault conditions are met and, on the basis of the combined fault conclusions, determines a logical diagnosis result having at least one fault cause hypothesis. A calculation unit subsequently calculates an occurrence probability for each fault cause hypothesis of the logical diagnosis result determined.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights