CTNF 18/970,774 CTNF 90822 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more. Under Step 2A (prong 1) , and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites: a method for dynamic pricing for a product plan, comprising: automatically determining available features associated with one or more models of equipment for document processing by a cloud-based application in networked communication with the equipment; displaying on a display screen a user interface to obtain selection information of the available features of the equipment; tailored-generating of a price quote by the cloud-based application using the selection information for the product plan and automatically for the one or more models of the equipment; and sending the price quote as an electronic message. The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to generate a price quote (Specification ¶0005). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including one or more models of equipment, a display screen, and a user interface. These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application 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 the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) 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. In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application. Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. MPEP 2106.05. In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting. Dependent claims 2-10 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. 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. Furthermore, claims 2-10 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2-10 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 2-10 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality. Claims 11-20 are parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claims 1-10, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied. In view of the above, claims 1-20 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-6 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Russell, US PG Pub 2011/0243553 A1 (hereafter “Russell”) . Regarding claim 1, Russell discloses a method for dynamic pricing for a product plan, comprising: automatically determining available features associated with one or more models of equipment for document processing by a cloud-based application in networked communication with the equipment (¶¶0021, 0025, 0028, 0050, 0089, 0123, 0131, and 0149-0156); displaying on a display screen a user interface to obtain selection information of the available features of the equipment (¶¶0018, 0026, 0067, 0077, 0086, 0092, and 0127); tailored-generating of a price quote by the cloud-based application using the selection information for the product plan and automatically for the one or more models of the equipment (¶¶0052-0054, 0061, 0070-0077, and 0089); and sending the price quote as an electronic message (¶¶0087-0088, 0114, and 0119). Regarding claim 2, Russell discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the selection information is first selection information, and the equipment is on-premises equipment, the method further comprising: displaying on the display screen the user interface to obtain second selection information of anticipated usage rate of one or more of the available features selected in the first selection information for the on-premises equipment (¶¶0012, 0021, 0061, and 0096-0099); and tailored-generating of the price quote by the cloud-based application using the first selection information and the second selected information for the product plan for the on-premises equipment (¶¶0017, 0025, 0052-0058, 0061, 0070-0077, and 0083-0089). Regarding claim 3, Russell discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising: determining location of the on-premises equipment (¶¶0017, 0025, 055-0058, and 0083-0086); adjusting the price quote by a cost of living adjustment associated with the location (¶¶0083, 0086, 0111-0112, and 0129); and sending the price quote as adjusted as the electronic message (¶¶0087-0088, 0114, and 0119). Regarding claim 4, Russell discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the first selection information is customer-selected features available for the on-premises equipment, and the second selection information is customer-selected anticipated usage rates of the one or more of the customer selected features for the on-premises equipment (¶¶0017, 0021, 0025, 0052-0058, 0061, 0070-0077, and 0083-0099), the method further comprising: determining by the cloud-based application actual features used and corresponding actual usage rates for the on-premises equipment over a period of time (¶¶0012, 0021, 0061, and 0096-0099); tailored-generating of a revised quote of the price quote by the cloud-based application using the actual features used and the actual usage rates for the on-premises equipment over the period of time (¶¶0052-0054, 0061, 0070-0077, and 0089); and sending the revised quote as another electronic message (¶¶0087-0088, 0114, and 0119). Regarding claim 5, Russell discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the available features for the document processing are associated with at least one of printing and scanning (¶0089). Regarding claim 6, Russell discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the available features include document converting, document splitting, and artificial intelligence processing (¶¶0100 and 0147). Regarding claims 11-20, all of the limitations in claims 11-20 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 1-6, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell in view of Bastos dos Santos et al., US PG Pub 2011/0271177 A1 (hereafter “Santos”) . Regarding claim 7, Russell teaches the method according to claim 6, but does not teach wherein the available features further include page scaling, page autorotating, automatic blank page removing, electronic signing, and file merging. Santos teaches automatic forms processing including the known techniques wherein the available features further include page scaling, page autorotating, automatic blank page removing, electronic signing, and file merging (¶¶0142, 0171, 0179-0180, 0219-0220, 0287-0289, and 0611). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Russell, to include document processing techniques as taught by Santos, in order to “automatically process documents,” as suggested by Santos (¶0005). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Santos, the results of the combination were predictable. Regarding claim 8, Russell in view of Santos teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the document converting uses optical character recognition to convert a scanned document into a file (Santos ¶¶0136-0147). Regarding claim 9, Russell in view of Santos teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the tailored-generating of the revised quote comprises seasonally adjusting the price quote to provide the revised quote (Russell ¶¶0083, 0086, 0111-0112, and 0129). Regarding claim 10, Russell in view of Santos teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the on-premises equipment includes a multi-function printer (Russell ¶0089) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sharp, US PG Pub 2016/0012465 A1, teaches a system and method for distributing, receiving, and using funds or credits. Aritomi, US PG Pub 2014/0071476 A1, teaches a server system, method for printing system, and storage medium. Non-patent literature Meissner, Stefan teaches benefits of Cloud Computing in the Online Printing Industry. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday. 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. /CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/970,774 Page 2 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/970,774 Page 3 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/970,774 Page 4 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/970,774 Page 5 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/970,774 Page 6 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/970,774 Page 7 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/970,774 Page 8 Art Unit: 3688 Application/Control Number: 18/970,774 Page 9 Art Unit: 3688
Prosecution Insights