DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 04/09/2025.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined here.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 5, and 7 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, an article of manufacture, and a machine, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 5, and 7 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 5, and 7, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
. . . storing (i) plan information indicating a plurality of plans for using a service and (ii) first allowable/disallowable switch information indicating allowability or disallowability of a plan switch from a current plan for which a tenant using the service has a contract to another plan intended to switch thereto in association with a combination of a nature of the current plan intended to switch therefrom and a nature of the plan intended to switch thereto; (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service companies would perform this step in managing which plans users are allowed to switch from, when they are allowed to switch from them, and in managing switching of users from one plan to another in accordance therewith)
. . . upon issuance of an instruction to switch from the current plan for which the tenant has the contract to the plan intended to switch thereto, determines whether the instructed plan switch between the plans is allowable or disallowable based on the plan information and the first allowable/disallowable switch information both stored in the storage device, keeps from making the plan switch when the plan switch is determined to be disallowable, and makes the plan switch when the plan switch is determined to be allowable. (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine whether an instructed plan switch is allowable or not and either execute the switch or not based on such; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service companies would perform this step in managing which plans users are allowed to switch from, when they are allowed to switch from them, and in managing switching of users from one plan to another in accordance therewith)
. . . storing second allowable/disallowable switch information indicating allowability or disallowability of a plan switch from a current plan for which a tenant using a service has a contract to another plan intended to switch thereto in association with a usage of the information processing device for service delivery by the tenant, the usage relating to the current contract plan intended to switch therefrom and the plan intended to switch thereto; (claim 7; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service companies would perform this step in managing which plans users are allowed to switch from, when they are allowed to switch from them, and in managing switching of users from one plan to another in accordance therewith)
upon issuance of an instruction to switch from the current plan for which the tenant has the contract to the plan intended to switch thereto, determines whether the instructed plan switch between the plans is allowable or disallowable based on the second allowable/disallowable switch information, keeps from making the plan switch when the plan switch is determined to be disallowable, and makes the plan switch when the plan switch is determined to be allowable. (claim 7; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine whether an instructed plan switch is allowable or not based on this information and either execute the switch or not based on such; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service companies would perform this step in managing which plans users are allowed to switch from, when they are allowed to switch from them, and in managing switching of users from one plan to another in accordance therewith)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes, since, but for the requirement to implement the steps on a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the above steps could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation and/or judgment. Furthermore, as a whole, the above elements recite certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service companies would perform the above steps in managing which plans users are allowed to switch from, when they are allowed to switch from them, and in managing switching of users from one plan to another in accordance therewith.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
a storage device (claims 1, 5, 7; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a controller that includes a processor and functions, through the processor executing a service delivery program, as a service deliverer that, (claims 1, 5, 7; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium with a service delivery program stored thereon, wherein, on an information processing device for service delivery comprising: (claim 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
An information processing device for service delivery comprising: (claims 1, 7; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 5, and 7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 8-9, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
wherein the first allowable/disallowable switch information indicates, in association with the combination, a time to reflect in the service the plan switch from the current plan for which the tenant has the contract to the plan intended to switch thereto,
upon issuance of the instruction to switch from the current plan for which the tenant has the contract to the plan intended to switch thereto, the service deliverer identifies the time to reflect the plan switch in the service based on the plan information and the first allowable/disallowable switch information both stored in the storage device, and
when the plan switch is determined to be allowable, the service deliverer makes the plan switch at the time identified based on the combination, the plan information, and the first allowable/disallowable switch information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could use indicated times in order to make plan switches at identified times in accordance with allowability conditions of the plan switches; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service companies would perform this step in managing which plans users are allowed to switch from, when they are allowed to switch from them, and in managing switching of users from one plan to another in accordance therewith.
Claim 3:
wherein the nature of the plan includes a type of the plan.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of plan information used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 4:
wherein the nature of the plan includes information indicating presence or absence of an extra charge system in the plan.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of plan used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 6:
wherein the storage device stores second allowable/disallowable switch information that indicates allowability or disallowability of the plan switch from the current plan for which the tenant using the service has the contract to the plan intended to switch thereto in association with a usage of the information processing device for service delivery by the tenant, the usage relating to the current plan intended to switch therefrom and the plan intended to switch thereto,
when determining that the plan switch is disallowable based on the plan information and the first allowable/disallowable switch information, the service deliverer determines whether the plan switch is allowable or disallowable based on the second allowable/disallowable switch information,
when the plan switch is determined to be disallowable based on the second allowable/disallowable switch information, the service deliverer keeps from making the plan switch, and
when the plan switch is determined to be allowable based on the second allowable/disallowable switch information, the service deliverer makes the plan switch.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store usage information in association with current and potential plans, and use an additional second condition to make a determination as to whether a plan switch is allowable, then make the switch according to the first and second allowability conditions; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service companies would perform this step in managing which plans users are allowed to switch from, when they are allowed to switch from them, and in managing switching of users from one plan to another in accordance therewith.
Claim 8:
wherein the second allowable/disallowable switch information further indicates, in association with the usage, a time to reflect in the service the plan switch from the current plan for which the tenant has the contract to the plan intended to switch thereto,
upon issuance of the instruction to switch from the current plan for which the tenant has the contract to the plan intended to switch thereto, the service deliverer identifies the time to reflect the plan switch in the service based on the second allowable/disallowable switch information, and
when the plan switch is determined to be allowable, the service deliverer makes the plan switch at the identified time.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could use indicated times in order to make plan switches at identified times in accordance with allowability conditions of the plan switches; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial service companies would perform this step in managing which plans users are allowed to switch from, when they are allowed to switch from them, and in managing switching of users from one plan to another in accordance therewith.
Claim 9:
wherein the usage includes an amount of the service used by the tenant in the current plan intended to switch therefrom.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of plan information used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-4, 6, and 8-9, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrenkel et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20210127015; hereinafter "Schrenkel") in view of Hironori, Aoi (Japanese Patent Document NO. JP2022070612A; hereinafter "Aoi").
As per claim 1, Schrenkel teaches:
An information processing device for service delivery comprising:
Schrenkel teaches a system and method for switching rate plans. (Schrenkel: abstract)
With respect to the following limitation:
a storage device storing (i) plan information indicating a plurality of plans for using a service and (ii) first allowable/disallowable switch information indicating allowability or disallowability of a plan switch from a current plan for which a tenant using the service has a contract to another plan intended to switch thereto in association with a combination of a nature of the current plan intended to switch therefrom and a nature of the plan intended to switch thereto;
Schrenkel teaches a storage device 1016 which may store rate plan parameters as well as an indication as to which devices are part of a pool which allows the device to switch from one rate plan to another. (Schrenkel: paragraph [0107, 109], Fig. 1A) Schrenkel, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that the user comprises a tenant.
Aoi, however, teaches, in the context of systems and methods for switching contracts, that a user's house may be the location at which a service contract may be executed, and therefore teaches that the user switching a contract may comprise a tenant (someone holding real estate by any kind of right). (Aoi: paragraph [0074]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Schrenkel, or by Aoi. Clarifying that the user of Schrenkel may comprise a tenant does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Schrenkel. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Aoi with the teachings of Schrenkel, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Schrenkel in view of Aoi further teaches:
and a controller that includes a processor and functions, through the processor executing a service delivery program, as a service deliverer that,
Schrenkel teaches the implementation of the system and method using a computer and therefore teaches a controller that includes and functions through a processor executing the service delivery programs. (Schrenkel: paragraph [0106], Fig. 1A, 1B)
upon issuance of an instruction to switch from the current plan for which the tenant has the contract to the plan intended to switch thereto, determines whether the instructed plan switch between the plans is allowable or disallowable based on the plan information and the first allowable/disallowable switch information both stored in the storage device, keeps from making the plan switch when the plan switch is determined to be disallowable, and makes the plan switch when the plan switch is determined to be allowable.
Schrenkel teaches that, when it is determined that a device is in the pool, and that the device may be optimized by switching from one rate plan to another, a command may be issued to the telecommunications provider server which causes the rate plan to be modified to a more optimal rate plan for the device. (Schrenkel: paragraph [0107-109]) In teaching that the device must be in the pool of switchable devices, Schrenkel teaches that the plan switch may not be made if the plan switch is determined to be disallowable. Id. See also paragraph [0126-127], Fig. 7 outlining pool ineligible devices.
As per claim 2, Schrenkel in view of Aoi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the first allowable/disallowable switch information indicates, in association with the combination, a time to reflect in the service the plan switch from the current plan for which the tenant has the contract to the plan intended to switch thereto,
Schrenkel further teaches that the pool of devices may be allowed to retroactively start their device on the new plan back to the beginning of the billing cycle, and therefore teaches an eligibility timing in the pool wherein the plan switch is effectuated according to the pool plan information at the beginning of the current billing cycle. (Schrenkel: paragraphs [0107, 110-111])
upon issuance of the instruction to switch from the current plan for which the tenant has the contract to the plan intended to switch thereto, the service deliverer identifies the time to reflect the plan switch in the service based on the plan information and the first allowable/disallowable switch information both stored in the storage device, and
Schrenkel further teaches that the pool of devices may be allowed to retroactively start their device on the new plan back to the beginning of the billing cycle, and therefore teaches an eligibility timing in the pool wherein the plan switch is effectuated according to the pool plan information at the beginning of the current billing cycle. (Schrenkel: paragraphs [0107, 110-111])
when the plan switch is determined to be allowable, the service deliverer makes the plan switch at the time identified based on the combination, the plan information, and the first allowable/disallowable switch information.
Schrenkel further teaches that the pool of devices may be allowed to retroactively start their device on the new plan back to the beginning of the billing cycle, and therefore teaches an eligibility timing in the pool wherein the plan switch is effectuated according to the pool plan information at the beginning of the current billing cycle. (Schrenkel: paragraphs [0107, 110-111])
As per claim 3, Schrenkel in view of Aoi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the nature of the plan includes a type of the plan.
Schrenkel teaches that a nature of the plan including which plans are eligible with which devices (a type of plan) may be stored as plan information. (Schrenkel: paragraph [0065, 109])
As per claim 4, Schrenkel in view of Aoi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the nature of the plan includes information indicating presence or absence of an extra charge system in the plan.
Schrenkel teaches that the plan may include extra charges if the device goes over a certain amount of data usage. (Schrenkel: paragraph [0109])
As per claim 5, Schrenkel in view of Aoi the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium with a service delivery program stored thereon, wherein, on an information processing device for service delivery comprising:
Schrenkel teaches a system and method for switching rate plans. (Schrenkel: abstract) Schrenkel teaches the implementation of the system and method using a computer and therefore teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium executing the service delivery programs. (Schrenkel: paragraph [0106], Fig. 1A, 1B)
As per claim 6, Schrenkel in view of Aoi teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the storage device stores second allowable/disallowable switch information that indicates allowability or disallowability of the plan switch from the current plan for which the tenant using the service has the contract to the plan intended to switch thereto in association with a usage of the information processing device for service delivery by the tenant, the usage relating to the current plan intended to switch therefrom and the plan intended to switch thereto,
Schrenkel further teaches second allowable switch/disallowable switch information in the form of various plans which may include data usage limits and indications as to whether the plan is eligible for pooling. (Schrenkel: paragraph [0107-108, 109]) In teaching that the usage information is stored indicating the current usage amount vis a vis amounts which may cause overages if not switched, Schrenkel teaches that the plan information may be stored in association with usage information used to determine whether to switch plans and which plans to switch to. Id. In teaching that the device must be in the pool of switchable devices, Schrenkel teaches that the plan switch may not be made if the plan switch is determined to be disallowable. Id. See also paragraph [0126-127], Fig. 7 outlining pool ineligible devices.
when determining that the plan switch is disallowable based on the plan information and the first allowable/disallowable switch information, the service deliverer determines whether the plan switch is allowable or disallowable based on the second allowable/disallowable switch information,
As outlined above, Schrenkel, in determining whether the device may be switched first determines whether the device is in the pool (first switch information), and then may further select plans which are eligible for pooling (second switch information), and may switch the device to the plan if both are true (and conversely may not do so if either is false). (Schrenkel: paragraphs [0107-109])
when the plan switch is determined to be disallowable based on the second allowable/disallowable switch information, the service deliverer keeps from making the plan switch, and
As outlined above, Schrenkel, in determining whether the device may be switched first determines whether the device is in the pool (first switch information), and then may further select plans which are eligible for pooling (second switch information), and may switch the device to the plan if both are true (and conversely may not do so if either is false). (Schrenkel: paragraphs [0107-109])
when the plan switch is determined to be allowable based on the second allowable/disallowable switch information, the service deliverer makes the plan switch.
As outlined above, Schrenkel, in determining whether the device may be switched first determines whether the device is in the pool (first switch information), and then may further select plans which are eligible for pooling (second switch information), and may switch the device to the plan if both are true (and conversely may not do so if either is false). (Schrenkel: paragraphs [0107-109])
As per claim 7, Schrenkel teaches:
An information processing device for service delivery comprising:
Schrenkel teaches a system and method for switching rate plans. (Schrenkel: abstract)
With respect to the following limitation:
a storage device storing second allowable/disallowable switch information indicating allowability or disallowability of a plan switch from a current plan for which a tenant using a service has a contract to another plan intended to switch thereto in association with a usage of the information processing device for service delivery by the tenant, the usage relating to the current contract plan intended to switch therefrom and the plan intended to switch thereto;
Schrenkel further teaches second allowable switch/disallowable switch information in the form of various plans which may include data usage limits and indications as to whether the plan is eligible for pooling. (Schrenkel: paragraph [0107-108, 109]) In teaching that the usage information is stored indicating the current usage amount vis a vis amounts which may cause overages if not switched, Schrenkel teaches that the plan information may be stored in association with usage information used to determine whether to switch plans and which plans to switch to. Id. In teaching that the device must be in the pool of switchable devices, Schrenkel teaches that the plan switch may not be made if the plan switch is determined to be disallowable. Id. See also paragraph [0126-127], Fig. 7 outlining pool ineligible devices. Schrenkel, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that the user comprises a tenant.
Aoi, however, teaches, in the context of systems and methods for switching contracts, that a user's house may be the location at which a service contract may be executed, and therefore teaches that the user switching a contract may comprise a tenant (someone holding real estate by any kind of right). (Aoi: paragraph [0074]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Schrenkel, or by Aoi. Clarifying that the user of Schrenkel may comprise a tenant does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Schrenkel. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Aoi with the teachings of Schrenkel, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Schrenkel in view of Aoi further teaches:
and a controller that includes a processor and functions, through the processor executing a service delivery program, as a service deliverer that,
Schrenkel teaches the implementation of the system and method using a computer and therefore teaches a controller that includes and functions through a processor executing the service delivery programs. (Schrenkel: paragraph [0106], Fig. 1A, 1B)
upon issuance of an instruction to switch from the current plan for which the tenant has the contract to the plan intended to switch thereto, determines whether the instructed plan switch between the plans is allowable or disallowable based on the second allowable/disallowable switch information, keeps from making the plan switch when the plan switch is determined to be disallowable, and makes the plan switch when the plan switch is determined to be allowable.
As outlined above, Schrenkel, in determining whether the device may be switched first determines whether the device is in the pool (first switch information), and then may further select plans which are eligible for pooling (second switch information), and may switch the device to the plan if both are true (and conversely may not do so if either is false). (Schrenkel: paragraphs [0107-109])
As per claim 8, Schrenkel in view of Aoi teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the second allowable/disallowable switch information further indicates, in association with the usage, a time to reflect in the service the plan switch from the current plan for which the tenant has the contract to the plan intended to switch thereto,
As outlined above, Schrenkel, in determining whether the device may be switched first determines whether the device is in the pool (first switch information), and then may further select plans which are eligible for pooling (second switch information), and may switch the device to the plan if both are true (and conversely may not do so if either is false). (Schrenkel: paragraphs [0107-109])
upon issuance of the instruction to switch from the current plan for which the tenant has the contract to the plan intended to switch thereto, the service deliverer identifies the time to reflect the plan switch in the service based on the second allowable/disallowable switch information, and
Schrenkel further teaches that the pool of devices may be allowed to retroactively start their device on the new plan back to the beginning of the billing cycle, and therefore teaches an eligibility timing in the pool wherein the plan switch is effectuated according to the pool plan information at the beginning of the current billing cycle. (Schrenkel: paragraphs [0107, 110-111])
when the plan switch is determined to be allowable, the service deliverer makes the plan switch at the identified time.
Schrenkel further teaches that the pool of devices may be allowed to retroactively start their device on the new plan back to the beginning of the billing cycle, and therefore teaches an eligibility timing in the pool wherein the plan switch is effectuated according to the pool plan information at the beginning of the current billing cycle. (Schrenkel: paragraphs [0107, 110-111])
As per claim 9, Schrenkel in view of Aoi teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the usage includes an amount of the service used by the tenant in the current plan intended to switch therefrom.
Schrenkel further teaches that the usage information may comprise the amount data usage (amount of service used) by the user in the current plan. (Schrenkel: paragraph [0107-109])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628