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 Status
Claims 1-13 are pending and rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claim 11 is directed to a server, which is a product. Claims 12-13 are directed to a system, which is a machine. Therefore, claims 1-13 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Representative claim 1 sets forth the following limitations which recite the abstract idea of managing custom products:
receiving custom programming information to be written in the vibrator device; and
generating a custom model number for specifying the received custom programming information.
The recited limitations above set forth steps to manage custom products. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal interactions (e.g. advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors).
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner notes that representative claim 1 recites additional elements such as a server, terminal, etc.
However, even with additional features such as these, the claims fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claims merely include instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or to merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, while the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: MPEP 2106).
Step 2B:
When taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor or computer to perform the steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Certain additional elements also recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Even if considered as an ordered combination, any additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-10 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the steps for managing custom products. Thus, each of claims 2-10 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and only generally link the abstract idea to a particularly technological environment, and applied on a generic computer. Further, the additional limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer, another technology, or a technical field.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2A/2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Regarding independent claims 11 (server) and 12-13 (system), the claims recite substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. As such, claims 11 and 12-13 are rejected for at least similar rationale as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2002/0059009 A1) (“Kano”), in view of Yamamoto (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0190485 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kano teaches a management method for a custom product of a vibrator device in a management system including:
a server (para [0058], business center server 100 connected to the Internet); and
a first terminal device of a customer connected to the server via a network (para [0059], plurality of user terminals 10 (only one is shown) are connected to the Internet),
the management method comprising the server:
receiving, from the first terminal device, custom programming information to be written in the device (para [0022], order-receiving/manufacturing system, the order data may include data of the configuration or the material of the oscillator); and
generating a custom model number for specifying the received custom programming information (para [0107], ID information of the individual oscillators 300, such as the oscillators and the packages, may be written; para [0143]).
Although Kano teaches the above method for customization of oscillators, Kano does not explicitly teach a vibrator device.
Yamamoto teaches a vibrator device (Fig. 1; para [0018], piezoelectric vibrator; para [0038], configurations of the connection electrodes, corner electrodes, extended electrodes, side electrodes, and outer electrodes, formed on the substrate 300, are not limited to the above-described example, and may be applied with various modifications).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the noted limitations as taught by Yamamoto in the method of Kano, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Namely, an improved method for configuring piezoelectric vibrators (See Yamamoto: para [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Kano and Yamamoto teach the above method of claim 1. Kano also teaches
the management system includes a writing device connected to the first terminal device and configured to write the custom programming information in the vibrator device (para [0058], control- data writing apparatuses), and
the server receives, from the first terminal device, the custom programming information written in the vibrator device by the writing device (para [0086], control-data writing apparatus includes...a personal computer (PC) 220 for running an application program which sets the characteristics of the oscillator 300 from the order data sent from the business center server 100 via a LAN, and which computes the control data to be written into the ROM 340 of the oscillator 300 in accordance with the set characteristics).
Regarding claim 3, Kano and Yamamoto teach the above method of claim 1. Kano also teaches wherein the server transmits the generated custom model number to the first terminal device (para [0107], ID information of the individual oscillators 300, such as the oscillators and the packages, may be written into the ROM 320 of the corresponding oscillator 300 when manufacturing the oscillators 300, and may automatically be read by the application software when acquiring the initial data).
Regarding claim 4, Kano and Yamamoto teach the above method of claim 3. Kano also teaches
the management system includes a second terminal device connected to the server and the first terminal device via the network (para [0059], plurality of user terminals 10 (only one is shown) are connected to the Internet), and
when receiving, from the second terminal device, the custom model number ordered by the first terminal device to the second terminal device, the server transmits the custom programming information specified by the custom model number to the second terminal device (Fig. 16, 17; para [0143], user data and the order data sent from the user terminal 10 are sequentially stored in the DB 108, and manage the number of the manufactured oscillators 300, the frequency, the user information, etc. according to the stored data; para [0149]; para [0157], by performing processing similar to that of the first embodiment, the control-data writing apparatus 200 writes the control data into the blank oscillator 300′).
Regarding claim 5, Kano and Yamamoto teach the above method of claim 3. Kano also teaches
the management system includes a second terminal device connected to the server and the first terminal device via the network (para [0059], plurality of user terminals 10 (only one is shown) are connected to the Internet), and
when receiving the custom model number from the first terminal device, the second terminal device transmits the received custom model number to the server and receives, from the server, the custom programming information specified by the custom model number (para [0143], user data and the order data sent from the user terminal 10 are sequentially stored in the DB 108, and manage the number of the manufactured oscillators 300, the frequency, the user information, etc. according to the stored data).
Regarding claim 6, Kano and Yamamoto teach the above method of claim 1. Kano also teaches
the management system includes a second terminal device connected to the server via the network (para [0059], plurality of user terminals 10 (only one is shown) are connected to the Internet), and
when the custom model number is generated, the server transmits the custom model number and the custom programming information specified by the custom model number to the second terminal device (para [0143], user data and the order data sent from the user terminal 10 are sequentially stored in the DB 108, and manage the number of the manufactured oscillators 300, the frequency, the user information, etc. according to the stored data).
Regarding claim 7, Kano and Yamamoto teach the above method of claim 5. Kano also teaches wherein the second terminal device transmits, to the server, purchase information of the vibrator device in which the custom programming information specified by the custom model number is written (para [0143], user data and the order data sent from the user terminal 10 are sequentially stored in the DB 108, and manage the number of the manufactured oscillators 300, the frequency, the user information, etc. according to the stored data).
Regarding claim 8, Kano and Yamamoto teach the above method of claim 1. Kano also teaches
the management system includes a second terminal device connected to the server and the first terminal device via the network (para [0059], plurality of user terminals 10 (only one is shown) are connected to the Internet), and
the first terminal device performs order processing for the vibrator device having the custom model number by transmitting the custom model number notified in advance from the server to the second terminal device (para [0143], user data and the order data sent from the user terminal 10 are sequentially stored in the DB 108, and manage the number of the manufactured oscillators 300, the frequency, the user information, etc. according to the stored data).
Regarding claim 9, Kano and Yamamoto teach the above method of claim 1. Kano also teaches wherein the custom programming information is information for setting characteristics of a signal output by the vibrator device by being written in the vibrator device (para [0077]-[0078], frequency control circuit 320 includes a programmable divider (reference divider: RD)...RD 321 divides the oscillation frequency fc of the oscillation signal output from the reference oscillation source).
Regarding claim 10, Kano and Yamamoto teach the above method of claim 1. Kano also teaches wherein,
the vibrator device includes a nonvolatile memory (para [0075], oscillator includes…a ROM), and
the custom programming information is information written in the nonvolatile memory (para [0082], control data is written into the ROM 340 of the blank oscillator).
Regarding claims 11-13, the claims recite substantially similar limitations as set forth in claims 1-10. As such, claims 11-13 are rejected for at least similar rationale as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND LOHARIKAR whose telephone number is 571-272-8756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am – 5pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANAND LOHARIKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689