DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the originally filed specification and claim amendments [January 28, 2025].
Claims 1-15 have been cancelled.
Claims 16-29 are newly added.
Claims 16-29 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 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 condition entry support unit configured to allow a user to input at least any one of a name of a component that the user wishes to purchase, a fluid type, a design temperature, a design pressure, an operation temperature, and an operation pressure as an input condition in claim 16.
a component rough selection unit configured to select, from a model number database, plant components conforming to the input condition by using a predetermined calculation formula not relying on suppliers of the plant components, model numbers of plant components and specification data being associated with each other in the model number database, and transmit the selected plant components to a client terminal as candidate components in claim 16.
a component selection unit configured to select the plant components by determining whether or not, out of the candidate components, each of the plant components selected by the user conforms to the input condition by using a calculation formula set by suppliers of the plant components in claim 16.
a quotation preparation unit configured to acquire, from a price and delivery time database, prices and delivery times of the plant components selected by the component selection unit, delivery times and prices of plant components being registered in the price and delivery time database on a supplier basis in claim 16.
Examiner notes that dependent claims 17-27 provide similar language for the four identified units above and are within the interpretation for 35 USC 112(f).
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 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
In terms of Step 1, claims 16-29 are directed towards one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
In terms of Step 2(a)(1), independent claims 16 and 28 are directed towards (as represented by claim 16), “allow a user to input at least any one of a name of a component that the user wishes to purchase, a fluid type, a design temperature, a design pressure, an operation temperature, and an operation pressure as an input condition; select, from a model number database, plant components conforming to the input condition by using a predetermined calculation formula not relying on suppliers of the plant components, model numbers of plant components and specification data being associated with each other in the model number database, and transmit the selected plant components […] as candidate components; select the plant components by determining whether or not, out of the candidate components, each of the plant components selected by the user conforms to the input condition by using a calculation formula set by suppliers of the plant components; and a acquire, from a price and delivery time database, prices and delivery times of the plant components selected by the component selection unit, delivery times and prices of plant components being registered in the price and delivery time database on a supplier basis, and display the acquired prices and delivery times”. The claims are describing a procurement process for components based on parameters and input conditions set by the user to determine and acquire the parts based on the selection, delivery, and price. The claims are directed towards an abstract idea under the certain method of organizing human activity grouping.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements with respect to being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements are, “A component purchase support method for supporting purchase of a plant component, the component purchase support method causing a computer to perform (claim 28); A component purchase support device configured to support purchase of a plant component, the component purchase support device comprising: a condition entry support unit configured to; a component rough selection unit configured to; a component selection unit configured to; quotation preparation unit configured to (claim 16); a client terminal”. The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification [18-25] and figure 2. The specification merely describes generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The computer elements, terminal, and units are not directed towards technical improvements, but rather tools to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements with respect to being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The additional elements are, “A component purchase support method for supporting purchase of a plant component, the component purchase support method causing a computer to perform (claim 28); A component purchase support device configured to support purchase of a plant component, the component purchase support device comprising: a condition entry support unit configured to; a component rough selection unit configured to; a component selection unit configured to; quotation preparation unit configured to (claim 16); a client terminal”. The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification [18-25] and figure 2. The specification merely describes generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The computer elements, terminal, and units are not directed towards technical improvements, but rather tools to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 17-27 and 29 are further describing the identified abstract idea and provide further additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are further providing aspects of the transaction and procurement by describing the input values, acquired data including pricing, delivery, and other component elements, displaying the results according to different transactional elements (price, customer review, component conformity, etc), providing component specifications and price/delivery from a supplier, selecting information based on the parameters of the model number, providing a user configuration and design change (user preference for the procured component), describing a necessary condition that describes satisfactory elements of the component (interpreted as conformity or preference), displaying information for the user, providing a negotiation for the component, and displaying/providing delivery of the component. The claims further describe the abstract idea in terms of the transaction/commercial interaction for the parts procurement process with component preference/design, conformity, delivery, and negotiation. As such, the dependent claims are directed towards the identified abstract idea. The dependent claims further provide additional elements in terms of a database (claim 18) and a computer (claim 29). The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification [18-25] and figure 2. The specification merely describes generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The computer elements and database are not directed towards technical improvements, but rather tools to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed invention is describing an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Therefore, claims 16-29 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards non-eligible 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) 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sethi et al [2016/0078403], hereafter Sethi, in view of McCally et al [2019/0095865], hereafter McCally.
Regarding claim 16, Sethi discloses a component purchase support device configured to support purchase of a plant component, the component purchase support device comprising: a condition entry support unit configured to allow a user to input at least any one of a name of a component that the user wishes to purchase, a fluid type, a design temperature, a design pressure, an operation temperature, and an operation pressure as an input condition; a component rough selection unit configured to select, from a model number database, plant components conforming to the input condition by using a predetermined calculation formula not relying on suppliers of the plant components, model numbers of plant components and specification data being associated with each other in the model number database, and transmit the selected plant components to a client terminal as candidate components (Paragraphs [25-29 and 40-42]; Sethi discloses that the system receives vehicle information input and parts recommendation based on the input including providing part recommendations for compatible parts regardless of the parts supplier (interpreted as not relying on suppliers). Examiner further notes that the system is beyond vehicles and includes part numbers and other equipment [64-66] in terms of user input values for issues and repair codes.);
a component selection unit configured to select the plant components by determining whether or not, out of the candidate components, each of the plant components selected by the user conforms to the input condition by using a calculation formula set by suppliers of the plant components (Paragraphs [41-49]; Sethi discloses a part selection that is based on learned analysis and user selection. The components are based on the supplier in terms of the OEM/aftermarket analysis and conformity to the vehicle and other input information.); and
a quotation preparation unit configured to acquire, from a price and delivery time database, prices and delivery times of the plant components selected by the component selection unit, delivery times and prices of plant components being registered in the price and delivery time database on a supplier basis, and display the acquired prices and delivery times on the client terminal (Paragraphs [50, 58-59, and 76]; Sethi discloses providing prices and delivery of the component based on the selection.).
Sethi discloses a vehicle component procurement and recommendation system, however, Sethi does not specifically disclose the data elements of the model number and specification data.
McCally teaches a similar part procurement system that specifically provides an interface and data acquisition that includes model number and specification elements [Fig 19-24 and paragraphs 60-64]. The combination is with respect to Sethi providing the procurement and recommendation aspects and McCally provides the specific data elements.
The sole difference between Sethi and the claimed invention is that Sethi does not specifically teach data elements in terms of model number and specification elements. Sethi provides different vehicle and part data aspects for the procurement recommendation.
McCally teaches a similar parts procurements system that specifically provides procurement and parts data for model and specification and that the specific type of data was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
Since each individual reference 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—that is in the substitution of the part data of McCally for the similar part data of Sethi. Therefore, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the component purchase support device according to claim 16,
Sethi further discloses wherein the condition entry support unit has an entry assist unit configured to preliminarily input an input condition that was not input by the user out of the plurality of input conditions based on past accumulation data or an initial value set in advance (Paragraphs [28]; Sethi discloses that the parts catalog and recommendation includes part upgrades, regular maintenance, and customer request for the diagnostic aspect.).
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the component purchase support device according to claim 16,
Sethi further discloses wherein the component rough selection unit is configured to acquire, from a price and delivery time past-record database, prices and delivery times of the plurality of plant components conforming to the input conditions, past record values of delivery times and prices of plant components being registered in the price and delivery time past-record database on a supplier basis, select, based on the acquired prices and delivery times, the plurality of plant components to be presented as the candidate components, and transmit information on the selected candidate components to the client terminal (Paragraphs [41-44, 51-55, and 58-59]; Sethi discloses price and delivery analysis in terms of previous purchases, quotes for repairs, and other price/delivery data for future procurement analysis and recommendations including based on parts, supplier, and other aspects.).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the component purchase support device according to claim 16,
Sethi further discloses wherein the component rough selection unit transmits information on the plant components to the client terminal so that the plurality of candidate components are displayed in accordance with price ranking, delivery time ranking, low energy loss ranking, conformity degree ranking of conformity between an input condition and a specification of a plant component, customer review score ranking, or overall evaluation ranking (Paragraphs [42-48 and 57-59]; Sethi discloses providing a sort and filter aspect for the recommended parts that includes cost/price, component attributes (interpreted as specification), and evaluation for parts based on expert reviews and other OEM/aftermarket comparisons.).
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the component purchase support device according to claim 16,
Sethi further discloses further comprising a component selection assist unit configured to assist selection of a plant component performed by the user, wherein the component selection assist unit acquires, from the model number database, specification data for model numbers having a specification close to a specification for a model number of any of the candidate components and provided by a single supplier and transmits information on a price and a delivery time associated with each of the model numbers and selection assist information including an operation condition and a design condition to the client terminal (Paragraphs [42-48 and 57-59]; Sethi discloses a recommendation analysis that includes OEM and aftermarket part analysis that includes a comparison between a fit between aftermarket and OEM and other delivery/price aspects in terms of providing a recommendation for the part.).
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the component purchase support device according to claim 20;
McCally further teaches wherein the selection assist information is information in which a property based on a specification of each of the model numbers is drawn in association with each model number on an orthogonal coordinate system having an axis representing a predetermined parameter and the operation condition and the design condition are drawn on the orthogonal coordinate system (Fig 4B, 19, and paragraphs [47-51; McCally discloses providing drawings and specifications for the components including parameters and design conditions. The coordinate system is shown in the figure 19 with respect to the parameter and coordinate system.).
Regarding claim 22, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the component purchase support device according to claim 21,
McCally further teaches wherein the design condition is configured to be changeable by a user, and wherein when the design condition is changed by the user, the candidate components are re-selected based on the changed design condition (Fig 4B, 19, and paragraphs [47-51; McCally discloses providing drawings and specifications for the components including parameters and design conditions. The changeable by a user is interpreted through the controls and other interface controls provided in the figure to alter and change the drawing.).
Regarding claim 23, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the component purchase support device according to claim 16,
Sethi further discloses wherein the component selection unit comprises a necessary condition determination unit configured to determine whether or not the input condition satisfies a necessary condition required for selection of a model number of a plant component, and an inquiry support unit configured to, when determining that the necessary condition is not satisfied, support a user inquiry to a supplier (Paragraph [29]; Sethi discloses that the recommended parts system provides parts necessary for the repair procedure.).
Regarding claim 24, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the component purchase support device according to claim 16,
Sethi further discloses wherein the quotation preparation unit comprises an option creation unit configured to display option information for the candidate components selected by the user on the client terminal (Paragraphs [74-76]; Sethi discloses that the system provides a cart interface that displays the price and item for checkout.).
Regarding claim 25, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the component purchase support device according to claim 16,
McCally further teaches further comprising an order reservation support unit configured to, when an order reservation of the plant component is requested from the client terminal, transmit information about the order reservation to a supplier terminal (Figs 1, 5-11, and paragraphs [54-59]; McCally teaches within the similar parts procurements system providing the component fabrication order through the queue and transmits through to the fabrication and other terminal/shops.).
Regarding claim 26, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the component purchase support device according to claim 16,
McCally further teaches further comprising a negotiation support unit configured to support negotiation between the user and a supplier of the plant component for an order placement of the plant component (Paragraph [53]; McCally teaches within the similar procurement system the vendor communication that provides order updates including product shortage and notifications for different products.).
Regarding claim 27, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the component purchase support device according to claim 16,
McCally further teaches further comprising a delivery support unit configured to, when an order placement of the plant component is requested from the client terminal, acquire information about delivery of the plant component on the order placement from a supplier and provide the acquired information about delivery of the plant component to the client terminal (Paragraphs [56-60 and 63-64]; McCally teaches providing order delivery including vehicle, driver, date, and other aspects within the sub-system.).
Regarding claim 28, Sethi discloses a component purchase support method for supporting purchase of a plant component, the component purchase support method causing a computer to perform: a condition entry support step of allowing a user to input at least any one of a name of a component that the user wishes to purchase, a fluid type, a design temperature, a design pressure, an operation temperature, and an operation pressure as an input condition; a component rough selection step of selecting, from a model number database, plant components conforming to the input condition by using a predetermined calculation formula not relying on suppliers of the plant components, model numbers of plant components and specification data being associated with each other in the model number database, and transmitting the selected plant components to a client terminal as candidate components (Paragraphs [25-29 and 40-42]; Sethi discloses that the system receives vehicle information input and parts recommendation based on the input including providing part recommendations for compatible parts regardless of the parts supplier (interpreted as not relying on suppliers). Examiner further notes that the system is beyond vehicles and includes part numbers and other equipment [64-66] in terms of user input values for issues and repair codes.);
a component selection step of selecting the plant components by determining whether or not, out of the candidate components, each of the plant components selected by the user conforms to the input condition by using a calculation formula set by suppliers of the plant components (Paragraphs [41-49]; Sethi discloses a part selection that is based on learned analysis and user selection. The components are based on the supplier in terms of the OEM/aftermarket analysis and conformity to the vehicle and other input information.); and
a quotation preparation step of acquiring, from a price and delivery time database, prices and delivery times of the plant components selected in the component selection step, delivery times and prices of plant components being registered in the price and delivery time database on a supplier basis, and displaying the acquired prices and delivery times on the client terminal (Paragraphs [50, 58-59, and 76]; Sethi discloses providing prices and delivery of the component based on the selection.).
Sethi discloses a vehicle component procurement and recommendation system, however, Sethi does not specifically disclose the data elements of the model number and specification data.
McCally teaches a similar part procurement system that specifically provides an interface and data acquisition that includes model number and specification elements [Fig 19-24 and paragraphs 60-64]. The combination is with respect to Sethi providing the procurement and recommendation aspects and McCally provides the specific data elements.
The sole difference between Sethi and the claimed invention is that Sethi does not specifically teach data elements in terms of model number and specification elements. Sethi provides different vehicle and part data aspects for the procurement recommendation.
McCally teaches a similar parts procurements system that specifically provides procurement and parts data for model and specification and that the specific type of data was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
Since each individual reference 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—that is in the substitution of the part data of McCally for the similar part data of Sethi. Therefore, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 29, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations;
Sethi further discloses a component purchase support program that causes a computer to function as the component purchase support device according to claim 16 (Fig 6 and paragraphs [77-80]; Sethi discloses the computer elements to implement the part procurement system.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Andersson et al [2005/0273395] (parts procurement);
Konishi et al [2007/0090179] (part inventor and procurement with specific specification for each component);
Lagoni et al [2020/0349626] (replacement part recommendation and interface based on part/item number);
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (EST).
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.
/ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
