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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-13 have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a reception unit, a processing unit, and a transmission unit in claim 1. Each of these are generic placeholders modified by functional language (e.g., configured to extract, configured to receive, configured to transmit, etc).
In regards to the reception unit, the specification discloses corresponding structure as a communication interface implemented by a semiconductor device having a communication function conforming to a predetermined communication standard such as Ethernet or Wi-Fi (see ¶0027).
In regards to the processing unit, the specification discloses corresponding structure such as at least one processor (CPU, GPU, or DSP) and a memory storing computer-readable instructions (see ¶0028).
In regards to the transmission unit, the specification discloses corresponding structure such as a communication interface implemented by a semiconductor device having a communication function conforming to a predetermined communication standard, which may be the same semiconductor device as the reception unit (see ¶0029).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 claims recite a judicial exception which is not integrated into a practical application and the claims lack an inventive concept.
Step 1 is the first inquiry into eligibility analysis and asks whether the claims are directed to a statutory category. In this instance, the answer must be in the affirmative because they recite a system and method.
Step 2A prong 1 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and asks whether the claimed invention recites a judicial exception. In this instance, the claims recite the following limitations which comprise the abstract idea:
receive desired characteristic data of a programmable oscillator input in a user terminal;
extract compatible product information that is product information of the programmable oscillator compatible with the desired characteristic data and substitute product information that is product information of an oscillator to be a substitute proposal target;
transmit the compatible product information and the substitute product information to the user terminal.
This is an abstract idea because it is a certain method of organizing human activity because it involves commercial interactions such as marketing and sales activities and/or behaviors.
Step 2A prong 2 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
a reception, processing, and transmission unit;
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations of the units are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 2-8 are directed to the abstract idea itself as they discuss more information about the searching for matching product information, its presentation, and also alternative products for recommendation. In regards to claim 9, writing to the oscillator is similar to a transmitting step and it does not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
a reception, processing, and transmission unit;
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida (US 8,452,785) in view of KANO (US 2002/0059009).
Referring to Claim 1, Kano teaches an information providing system comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive desired characteristic data of a product input in a user terminal (see Iida Fig. 9 and Col. 12 lines 61-67);
a processing unit configured to extract compatible product information that is product information of the product compatible with the desired characteristic data and substitute product information that is product information of a product to be a substitute proposal target (see Iida Fig. 9 and Col. 13 lines 5-19, the system finds products that meet the user’s preference and products that are similar and have some values that may overlap but are different);
a transmission unit configured to transmit the compatible product information and the substitute product information to the user terminal (see Iida Fig. 6,9 and Col. 13 lines 22-41);
Iida does not explicitly teach where the product and alternative products are programmable oscillators. However, Kano teaches where products are programmable oscillators (see Kano ¶¶0013,57-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the catalog-based item search system of Iida to the domain of programmable oscillators as taught by Kano because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Kano would still teach searching for products to purchase except that now those products would include programmable oscillators. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 2, the combination teaches the information providing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit extracts, as the substitute product information, product information of an oscillator with which a part of a plurality of characteristics indicated by the desired characteristic data of the programmable oscillator coincides (see Iida Col. 10 lines 22-46).
Referring to Claim 3, the combination teaches the information providing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit extracts, as the substitute product information, product information of an oscillator having additional characteristics other than a plurality of characteristics indicated by the desired characteristic data of the programmable oscillator (see Iida Col. 10 lines 22-41 and Col. 3 lines 3-9).
Referring to Claim 4, the combination teaches the information providing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit extracts, as the substitute product information, product information of an oscillator in which at least one of a plurality of characteristics indicated by the desired characteristic data of the programmable oscillator is higher than the characteristic of the programmable oscillator (see Iida Fig. 6, a product with a value of EU 39 was searched an a product of EU 40 was returned which is higher).
Referring to Claim 8, the combination teaches the information providing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit presents, to a user of the user terminal, setting of characteristics of the programmable oscillator compatible with characteristics of the oscillator to be the substitute proposal target (see Iida Fig. 6).
Referring to Claim 9, the combination teaches the information providing system according to claim 1, wherein the user terminal is communicably connected to a characteristic writing device that sets characteristic data in the programmable oscillator, and the desired characteristic data is the characteristic data set in the programmable oscillator by the characteristic writing device (see Kano ¶¶0086-87,140-141).
Referring to Claim 10, this claim is similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same reasons and rationale.
Referring to Claim 11, this claim is similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same reasons and rationale.
Referring to Claim 12, the combination teaches the processing method according to claim 11, wherein the user terminal is communicably connected to a characteristic writing device that sets characteristic data in the programmable oscillator, and the desired characteristic data is the characteristic data set in the programmable oscillator by the characteristic writing device (see Kano ¶¶0086-87,140-141).
Referring to Claim 13, the combination teaches the processing method according to claim 12, further comprising processing of urging the user to write the characteristic data based on the substitute product information in the programmable oscillator (see Kano ¶¶0086-87,140-141).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida (US 8,452,785) in view of KANO (US 2002/0059009) in further view of Reference U (see PTO-892).
Referring to Claim 5, depends from claim 1 and further that the desired characteristic data includes a desired output frequency, and the processing unit extracts, as the substitute product information, product information of a fixed frequency oscillator, an output frequency of which coincides with the desired output frequency. Iida teaches a processing unit that searches a product catalog for items with attributes matching or overlapping the user’s desired attributes (see Iida Fig. 9 and Col. 13 lines 5-18). Kano teaches that the desired characteristic data includes a desired output frequency f0 input by the user (see Kano ¶¶0108,127).
The combination however does not teach extracting product information of a fixed frequency oscillator whose output frequence coincides with the desired output frequency. However, Reference U teaches this (see Reference U section 6 lists 125Mhz, 156.25Mhz, and 312.5Mhz for SDI video). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine these references because the results are predictable. Specifically, the combination would continue to teach offering programmable oscillators for purchase except that now it would also teach offering fixed frequency oscillators. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 6, the combination teaches the information providing system according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the extracted desired characteristic data includes a desired output frequency, and the processing unit extracts, as the substitute product information, an oscillator having, when the predetermined ratio is represented as d%, an oscillation frequency of an output frequency that is different from the desired output frequency and is ±d% with respect to the desired output frequency. However, Reference U teaches wherein data can include an oscillator having, when the predetermined ratio is represented as d%, an oscillation frequency of an output frequency that is different from the desired output frequency and is ±d% with respect to the desired output frequency (see Reference U in sections 6.1-6.3 fixed frequency oscillators exist at specific standard frequencies, and their existence provides concrete examples of oscillators with frequencies close to but different from a desired output frequency; for example, a user desiring a 155.52MHz, the SONET/SDH standard, or 156.25MHz, the Ethernet standard, is available, both within a small percentage of the desired frequency). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine these references because the results are predictable. Specifically, the combination would continue to teach offering programmable oscillators for purchase except that now the substitute oscillators extracted would include the specific ratios and frequencies as desired above. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 7, the combination teaches the information providing system according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the transmission unit preferentially transmits, as the substitute product information, product information of an oscillator having a standard frequency registered in a database. However, Iida teaches this (see Iida sections 6.1-6.3, 74.25MHz, 148.5MHz and 297MHz are for SDI video and other frequencies are for Ethernet, etc). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine these references because the results are predictable. Specifically, the combination would continue to teach offering programmable oscillators for purchase except that now the substitute oscillators extracted would include standard frequencies registered in a database. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Remarks
Additional prior art relevant to the application but not relied upon includes:
Reference V (see PTO-892) which is a YouTube video teaching programming a programmable oscillator.
JEONG (US 20230169564) teaches using AI for shopping purchase prediction.
WANG (CN 205657677 U) teaches a programmable voltage-controlled oscillator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5278. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm M-T, 8-12pm W.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at (571)272-6763. 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.
/MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688