DETAILED ACTION
This Final Action is in response to the argument and amendment filed March 03, 2026.
Claims 1-7 are amended.
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 .
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 1-7 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- 6 is a system (i.e., a machine), claim 7 to a computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture or machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. 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:
A warranty information notification system, comprising:
a memory storing (i) configuration information in which device identification information identifying a device is associated with component identification information identifying a plurality of components constituting the device and hierarchical relationship information indicating hierarchical relationships among the plurality of components, and
(ii) warranty-related input information including installation date information or inspection date information of the device; and
a processor configured to refer to the configuration information stored in the memory based on the device identification information, identify, based on the hierarchical relationship information, one or more suppliers corresponding to the plurality of components constituting the device,
calculate, from the warranty-related input information, a warranty start date corresponding to each of the identified one or more suppliers,
generate warranty information including the calculated warranty start date in association with each of the identified one or more suppliers, and
transmit the generated warranty information to a notification destination corresponding to each of the identified one or more suppliers.
The abstract idea of Claim 7:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
refer to configuration information in which device identification information is associated with component identification information and hierarchical relationship information; identify one or more suppliers corresponding to a plurality of components constituting a device based on the hierarchical relationship information;
calculate a warranty start date from warranty-related input information including installation date information or inspection date information;
generate warranty information including the calculated warranty start date in association with each of the identified one or more suppliers; and
transmit the generated warranty information to a notification destination corresponding to each of the identified one or more suppliers.
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, storing, identifying, ranking, calculating, generating and transmitting a general warranty information. 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 relate to calculation warranty-related information, identifying suppliers which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity. This is further supported by [0017 and 0038] 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.
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: memory storing, the device, a processor, stored in the memory, one or more suppliers.
Claim 7 recites the following additional elements: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more processors, one or more suppliers, a device.
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 [0038] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
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. 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 additional elements on the dependent claims 2-6 as well:
Dependent claim 2-6 defines the abstract idea as identified.
Claim 2-5 recites the following additional elements: warranty information notification system, the processor, one or more suppliers. This does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more. The claim is ineligible. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)
Dependent claim 6, further describes the abstract idea. Claim 6 is based on the claims describing a mental process of managing and authorizing access and authentication of a supplier and a device purchaser. See specification [0020-0021] for further details. The authority management unit is merely generic technology to authorize and authenticate an access. The apparatus is not a technical improvement and merely implementing the abstract idea using generic technology. As such additional elements are not significantly more or transformative into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are covered under certain methods of mental process groupings of abstract ideas.
In conclusion the claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Accordingly, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padilla et al [US 2007/017,4652 A1] hereafter Padilla, in view of Iyer et al [US 2005/001,5273 A1 ] hereafter Iyer.
As per claim 1 and 7 (Similar scope);
Padilla discloses storing information from different points in the database , see [0096]
A warranty information notification system, comprising:
a memory storing (i) configuration information in which device identification information identifying a device is associated with component identification information identifying a plurality of components constituting the device and [hierarchical relationship information indicating hierarchical relationships] among the plurality of components, and (ii) warranty-related input information including installation date information or inspection date information of the device; and
{[0096] Information from various points of this process is stored in the database 12 for use in generating the various outputs and for maintaining a failure history.}
Padilla discloses the part number and part description [device identification information identifying a device is associated with component identification information];
{[0015-0016] providing a plurality of components, each of the components being associated, in the database, with a supplier who produced the component; providing a plurality of products each including at least one of the components;
[0151] The Manage Parts function allows the user to identify the parts associated with this vendor.
[0153-0154] Part Number; Part Description;}
Padilla discloses the system can track and assemble products and its individual parts back through the supply chain to identify who assembled or originally supplied each component [hierarchical relationship information indicating hierarchical relationships]
{[0085] Thus, an assembly may be traced back to an assembler, but the assembler may obtain parts from various suppliers. It would be useful to trace all of these parts and the assembly back to their originators.}
Padilla discloses the warranty input information [warranty-related input information]
{[0017-0022] determining which of the components failed during a warranty period of each of the products; creating a record of each of the failed components in the database; collecting some number of the components that failed for analyzing the some number of failed components; creating a record of each of the some number of failed components in the database; determining corresponding failure information for each of the some number of failed components; associating, in the database, the record of each of the some number of failed components with the corresponding failure information;
[0095] The cost of the failures is determined 46, and the supplier of the failed component(s) can be invoiced for the recovery costs 48.
[0116] Part Warranties: Claims processing functionality is provided to support Part Warranties and to make separate checks for this.}
Padilla discloses the identification of suppliers associated with a component of a product and tracing those products back to their suppliers;
a processor configured to refer to the configuration information stored in the memory based on the device identification information, identify, based on the hierarchical relationship information, one or more suppliers corresponding to the plurality of components constituting the device,
{[0009] the system automatically determining which among a plurality of suppliers provided the failed components;
[0015] each of the components being associated, in the database, with a supplier who produced the component;
[0085] an assembly may be traced back to an assembler, but the assembler may obtain parts from various suppliers. It would be useful to trace all of these parts and the assembly back to their originators.}
Padilla discloses generating supplier specific information, transmitting to a corresponding supplier through electronic or network means [transmit the generated warranty information to a notification destination corresponding to each of the identified one or more suppliers].
{[0007] the system automatically providing an appropriate portion of the quality information to one or more of the plurality of suppliers, which provided the failed components.
[0027-0028] the system automatically providing each of the invoices to the appropriate one of the suppliers; and the system automatically providing each of the quality reports to the appropriate one of the suppliers.
[0047] the system server automatically providing the supplier secures access to the quality report via a computer connected to the communication network.
[0119 - 0120] Vendor Invoices will be generated based upon this data and sent: Electronically to Vendor;}
Padilla discloses quality reports, invoices and warranty recovery information
Generate warranty information including the calculated warranty start date in association with each of the identified one or more suppliers, and
[0012-0013] system automatically generating quality information for the plurality of suppliers which provided the failed components; the system automatically providing an appropriate portion of the quality information to one or more of the plurality of suppliers, which provided the failed components.
[0014] the system automatically generating a quality report for each of the suppliers, the quality report including information about the failed components provided by the supplier and also including information about the associated failure information;
[0095] Also, a quality report can be generated 47, and provided to the supplier 49, to implement a process improvement program 50 to improve component quality.
Padilla does not explicitly disclose the following; however; Iyer discloses registration, installation and repair date [installation date information or inspection date information of the device]
{[0020] a customer portal may be provided through which a customer may register products purchased through third party retailers and other sources……. a rules engine (box 440) may solicit customer information sufficient to register a new product and initiate a basic warranty for that product.
[0023] It may store data representing a product's serial number, dates and types of repairs performed on a given product, dates and types of maintenance performed and any causes noted for product failure.}
Iyer discloses the warranty related input such as product serial number and dates [calculate, from the warranty-related input information, a warranty start date corresponding to each of the identified one or more suppliers],
{[0020] The rules engine 440 may solicit customer information sufficient to register the new product from a POS data source, typically found at retail locations.}
[0023] It may store data representing a product's serial number, dates and types of repairs performed on a given product, dates and types of maintenance performed and any causes noted for product failure.}
Iyer discloses the date;
{[0023] It may store data representing a product's serial number, dates and types of repairs performed on a given product, dates and types of maintenance performed and any causes noted for product failure.}
Motivation: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the warranty information notification system as disclosed by Padilla, with the inclusion of registration, installation and repair dates as taught by Iyer, for the purpose of tracking the warranty on the device.
As per claim 2;
Padilla does not explicitly disclose the following; however; Iyer discloses initiating a basic warranty, repair and maintenance dates;
The warranty information notification system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to calculate the warranty start date based on at least one of an installation date, an operation start date, and an inspection date of the device.
{[0021] product registration and basic warranty provision may occur from point of sale (POS) data
[0023] It may store data representing a product's serial number, dates and types of repairs performed on a given product, dates and types of maintenance performed and any causes noted for product failure.}
Motivation: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the warranty information notification system as disclosed by Padilla, with the inclusion of registration, installation and repair dates as taught by Iyer, for the purpose of tracking the warranty on the device.
As per claim 3;
Padilla discloses a system that can associate components with the supplier and trace an assembly and its parts back to their respective suppliers;
The warranty information notification system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to identify the one or more suppliers by referring to the hierarchical relationship information.
{[0010-0011] the system automatically determining which among a plurality of suppliers provided the failed components; the system automatically allocating the recovery costs among the plurality of suppliers according to which suppliers provided the failed components;
[0015] each of the components being associated, in the database, with a supplier who produced the component;
[0085] an assembly may be traced back to an assembler, but the assembler may obtain parts from various suppliers. It would be useful to trace all of these parts and the assembly back to their originators.}
As per claim 4;
Padilla discloses identifying the vendors, maintaining receipts associated with the process and notification.
The warranty information notification system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to present, based on the configuration information, candidate notification destinations corresponding to the identified one or more suppliers, and [accept selection of the candidate notification destinations].
{[0045] the server automatically sending, via a communication network, the electronic invoice to the supplier;
[0091] Remote users can be connected via an intranet, such as Remote Workstation 17, or via the Internet such as Remote Workstation 19.
[0140] Invoice Notifications is list of System users for the manufacturer who are notified via e-mail when the invoice is generated so user can have a summary of the invoice information.
[0210] Manufacturer Parts Vendors can receive access to the System.}
Padilla does not explicitly disclose the following; however, Iyer discloses [accept selection of the candidate notification destinations].
{[0027] The defect resolution manager 520 represents functionality sufficient to diagnose and remediate possible product defects. It may engage the communication manager 530 to exchange product performance data with computer systems of other participants in a product's distribution chain (e.g., systems of distributors, service/repair organizations and product vendors).
[0034] a defect notification 640 received from an external agent. In one embodiment, a defect notification 640 generated by any agent (say, the ISO) may be transmitted to every agent (the manufacturer, service providers and suppliers) in the distribution chain either directly or through a notification relay mechanism.
[0042] The communication manager 810, as its name implies, manages portal-based communication services with servers from computer networks of various service providers…….. The communication manager may forward requests as appropriate to the EAM 820 or the lookup manager 830.}
Motivation: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the warranty information notification system as disclosed by Padilla, with the inclusion of managing a portal-based communication services with servers from computer networks of various service providers as taught by Iyer, for the purpose of rendering a service and improving communication between the supplier and customer.
As per claim 5;
Padilla does not explicitly disclose the following; however, Iyer does not disclose the following, however; Padilla discloses receiving the updated warranty information from the supplier [0040], storing the updated information and associating it with the device identification information; See [0040, 0096, 0101, 0132]
The warranty information notification system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to receive updated warranty-related input information from at least one of the identified one or more suppliers, and associate the updated warranty-related input information with the device identification information.
[0040] the supplier using the system to enter, via the internet, the failure information into the database;
[0096] Information from various points of this process is stored in the database 12 for use in generating the various outputs and for maintaining a failure history.
[0132] Results and status continue to be updated in the System through completion of the part testing/fault analysis, up to and including the supplier stage of the process}
Motivation: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the warranty information notification system as disclosed by Padilla, with the inclusion of managing a portal-based communication services with servers from computer networks of various service providers as taught by Iyer, for the purpose of rendering a service and improving communication between the supplier and customer.
As per claim 6;
Padilla does not explicitly disclose the following; however, Iyer discloses the authentication and access authorization control for service providers and customers;
The warranty information notification system according to claim 1, wherein the memory further stores authorization information defining access rights of a device purchaser and the one or more suppliers, and the processor is configured to [control registration] of the warranty-related input information and the notification destination based on authentication result and authorization information.
{[0042] The communication manager 810 authenticates new requests received from service providers and manages the service providers' access to data structures within the SPE system 800
[0048] Warrantors may limit the scope of repairs that they authorize service providers to perform based upon the service providers' past performance, cost relative to other service providers, geographical locations and/or service response time.}
Motivation: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the warranty information notification system as disclosed by Padilla, with the inclusion of managing a portal-based communication services with servers from computer networks of various service providers as taught by Iyer, for the purpose of rendering a service and improving communication between the supplier and customer.
Padilla discloses the authorized access or preventing of unauthorized access [control registration]
[0078] The System and method provide part level tracking that allows authorized users to access a problem part in simple screens in a useful style.
[0099] it may be desirable to provide security measures as in known in the art to prevent unauthorized use or adulteration of the data.}
Response to Argument
In response to the argument filled on March 03, 2026, regarding the 101 rejections. Examiner withdraws the 112(f), in view of the amendments made on March 03, 2026.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant argues that the amended claims recite the combination of additional elements including a specific data structure, identification of suppliers, and a warranty reference date used as a basis for warranty processing. And the additional element integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner Respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that the aspect of identifying suppliers, managing warranty information and warranty processing the Examiner viewed as steps of the identified abstract idea in the Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis and the Estimation model as an additional element in the Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 includes specific technical features that are not explicitly or inherently disclosed in the applied art of record. Applicant respectfully submits that the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Examiner Respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that the technical features are merely generic technology with no technical improvement rather an improvement to the abstract idea using generic technology. See Applicant specification [0010].
The Examiner maintains these claims recite an abstract idea.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the Examiner has maintained the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Whan et al (KR 20090001877 A)- Is directed to a prepayment processing method and system utilizing payment guarantees and a recording medium to manage advance payments for goods deliveries. The system operates by registering supplier and contract data, verifying transaction details against stored information, and executing automated fund transfers from a seller account to a supplier account via an integrated financial system. You can review the patent documentation directly for more information.
T. E. Briers and B. A. Cumbea, "A Computer System for Locomotive Maintenance," in IEEE Transactions on Industry and General Applications, vol. IGA-7, no. 5, pp. 673-677.
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 VICTOR ESONU whose telephone number is (571)272 -4883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on (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, vis it: 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.
/VICTOR ESONU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights