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 05/14/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
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:
Claims 1-20:
“receiving unit” for receiving
“calculation unit” for calculating
“determination unit” for selecting
“output unit” for outputting
Claims 11-20:
“presentation unit” for physically presenting
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 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 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 and 11 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, a process, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1 and 11 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 and 11, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
. . . receiving data of historical returned products; (claims 1, 11; 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 receive this data; 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 manufacturing companies would perform this step in determining what materials are needed to repair products expected to be returned in the future)
. . . calculating a quantity of each returned product in a next time period based on the data of historical returned products; (claims 1, 11; 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 perform this calculation; 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 manufacturing companies would perform this step in determining what materials are needed to repair products expected to be returned in the future; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass any mathematical formula or operation for performing this calculation)
. . . selecting returned products with repair benefits in the next time period by filtering out returned products without repair benefits, and calculating a quantity of each material required for repairing the returned products with repair benefits in the next time period, thereby generating corresponding data of the quantity of the each material required for repairing the returned products with repair benefits in the next time period; (claims 1, 11; 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 select products by filtering out products and calculating a quantity of material required for repairing returned products in this manner; 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 manufacturing companies would perform this step in determining what materials are needed to repair products expected to be returned in the future; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass any mathematical formula or operation for performing this calculation)
. . . outputting the corresponding data. (claims 1, 11; 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 output 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 manufacturing companies would perform this step in determining what materials are needed to repair products expected to be returned in the future)
. . .physically present the corresponding data. (claims 1, 11; 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 physically present 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 manufacturing companies would perform this step in determining what materials are needed to repair products expected to be returned in the future)
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 calculation system for calculating quantities of materials required for repairing returned products, the calculation system comprising: (claims 1, 11; 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 receiving unit for (claims 1, 11; 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 calculation unit for (claims 1, 11; 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 determination unit for (claims 1, 11; 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 output unit for (claim 1; 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 an output unit for outputting the corresponding data to a presentation unit, allowing the presentation unit to physically present the corresponding data. (claim 11; 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 and 11 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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2 and 12:
wherein the calculation unit calculates the quantity of each returned product in the next time period based on one of algorithms of eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Transformer.
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 these algorithms to calculate quantities; 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 manufacturing companies would perform this step in determining what materials are needed to repair products expected to be returned in the future; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since these algorithms use mathematical operations and formulas to create predictions and calculate quantities. Finally the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using such algorithms as well as the mere requirement to implement the abstract idea in the particular field of use of machine learning.
Claims 3 and 13:
wherein the determination unit classifies each returned product in the next time period based on K-Means or K-Modes clustering method.
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 classify each returned product using K-means or K-modes clustering; 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 manufacturing companies would perform this step in determining what materials are needed to repair products expected to be returned in the future; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since these algorithms use mathematical operations and formulas to create predictions and calculate quantities. Finally the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using such algorithms as well as the mere requirement to implement the abstract idea in the particular field of use of machine learning.
Claims 4 and 14:
wherein the calculation unit is further configured to calculate an average repair cost for returned products classified into the same category in the next time period.
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 calculate an average repair cost in this manner; 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 manufacturing companies would perform this step in determining what materials are needed to repair products expected to be returned in the future; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since calculation of an average cost requires mathematical formulas and operations.
Claims 5 and 15:
wherein the determination unit is further configured to group materials required for repairing returned products classified into the same category.
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 group materials into categories in this manner; 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 manufacturing companies would perform this step in determining what materials are needed to repair products expected to be returned in the future.
Claims 6 and 16:
wherein the determination unit selectively uses one of Croston's model, Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), or Random Forest Regression, based on distribution of data of each group, to calculate the quantities of the materials required for repairing the returned products with repair benefits in the next time period, to generate the corresponding data.
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 these algorithms to calculate quantities; 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 manufacturing companies would perform this step in determining what materials are needed to repair products expected to be returned in the future; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since these algorithms use mathematical operations and formulas to create predictions and calculate quantities. Finally the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using such algorithms as well as the mere requirement to implement the abstract idea in the particular field of use of machine learning.
Claims 7 and 17:
wherein the data of each group includes historical demand data of the each material, and the historical demand data of the each material includes average demand interval (ADI) and coefficient of variation (CV) of the each material.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the information used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 8 and 18:
wherein the determination unit calculates the quantity of the each material required for repairing the returned products with repair benefits in the next time period based on a correlation coefficient.
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 calculate quantities of materials in this manner; 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 manufacturing companies would perform this step in determining what materials are needed to repair products expected to be returned in the future; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since calculation of quantities based on a correlation coefficient requires mathematical formulas and operations.
Claims 9 and 19:
wherein the receiving unit receives the data of historical returned products from a cloud system through a network.
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 receive historical data; 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 manufacturing companies would perform this step in determining what materials are needed to repair products expected to be returned in the future. Regarding the use of a network and a cloud system, 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.
Claim 10:
wherein the output unit transmits the corresponding data to a presentation unit.
Regarding the use of a presentation unit, 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.
Claim 20:
wherein the presentation unit comprises a display configured to display the corresponding data or a printer to print out the corresponding data.
Regarding the use of a presentation unit comprising a display or a printer, 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 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 2-10 and 12-20, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fyda et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20070156439; hereinafter "Fyda") in view of Lin et al. (U.S. PG Pub. NO. 20030061128; hereinafter "Lin").
As per claim 1, Fyda teaches:
A calculation system for calculating quantities of materials required for repairing returned products, the calculation system comprising:
Fyda teaches a system and method for processing and repairing returned products. (Fyda: abstract) Fyda teaches maintaining a reverse BOM on parts, wherein the replacement rate of parts is used to predict necessary amounts of parts that need to be on hand to handle repairs of returned products. (Fyda: paragraph [0013-14-17])
With respect to the following limitation:
a receiving unit for receiving data of historical returned products;
Fyda teaches that historical return rates of similar products may be used to predict future return rates of a product at hand. (Fyda: paragraph [0013-14]) Fyda, however, does not appear to explicitly teach a receiving unit for receiving information.
Lin, however, teaches that a manufacturer computer 10 may receive product information over a network 30. (Lin: paragraph [0014], Fig. 1) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Fyda, or by Lin. Executing the system of Fyda using the computer of Lin does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Fyda. 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 Lin with the teachings of Fyda, 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.
Fyda in view of Lin further teaches:
a calculation unit for calculating a quantity of each returned product in a next time period based on the data of historical returned products;
Fyda teaches that historical return rates of similar products may be used to predict future return rates of a product at hand for three months’ worth of sales. (Fyda: paragraph [0013-14]) Lin further teaches the estimation of forthcoming products for a future period of time which multiplies the number of returned products by a returned ratio which represents the percentage of returned products which can be repaired (those with repair benefits). (Lin: paragraphs [0015-20]) Lin teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Fyda for the benefit of providing a precise estimation which can significantly reduce inventory and associated costs. (Lin: paragraph [0015]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lin with the teachings of Fyda to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
a determination unit for selecting returned products with repair benefits in the next time period by filtering out returned products without repair benefits, and calculating a quantity of each material required for repairing the returned products with repair benefits in the next time period, thereby generating corresponding data of the quantity of the each material required for repairing the returned products with repair benefits in the next time period;
Fyda teaches that historical return rates of similar products may be used to predict future return rates of a product at hand for three months’ worth of sales. (Fyda: paragraph [0013-14]) Lin further teaches the estimation of forthcoming products for a future period of time which multiplies the number of returned products by a returned ratio which represents the percentage of returned products which can be repaired (those with repair benefits). (Lin: paragraphs [0015-20]) The motivations to combine Lin persist. Fyda further teaches that purchase orders may be generated and output for replenishment of items deemed to be insufficient to run a production schedule for repairing the part. (Fyda: paragraphs [0015, 19])
an output unit for outputting the corresponding data.
Fyda teaches that historical return rates of similar products may be used to predict future return rates of a product at hand for three months’ worth of sales. (Fyda: paragraph [0013-14]) Lin further teaches the estimation of forthcoming products for a future period of time which multiplies the number of returned products by a returned ratio which represents the percentage of returned products which can be repaired (those with repair benefits). (Lin: paragraphs [0015-20]) The motivations to combine Lin persist. Fyda further teaches that purchase orders may be generated and output for replenishment of items deemed to be insufficient to run a production schedule for repairing the part. (Fyda: paragraphs [0015, 19])
As per claim 8, Fyda in view of Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the determination unit calculates the quantity of the each material required for repairing the returned products with repair benefits in the next time period based on a correlation coefficient.
Fyda teaches that historical return rates of similar products may be used to predict future return rates of a product at hand for three months’ worth of sales. (Fyda: paragraph [0013-14]) Lin further teaches the estimation of forthcoming products for a future period of time which multiplies the number of returned products by a returned ratio (a correlation coefficient) which represents the percentage of returned products which can be repaired (those with repair benefits). (Lin: paragraphs [0015-20]) The motivations to combine Lin persist. Fyda further teaches that purchase orders may be generated and output for replenishment of items deemed to be insufficient to run a production schedule for repairing the part. (Fyda: paragraphs [0015, 19])
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fyda in view of Lin further in view of DEPARTMENT OF CHENGDU (Chinese Patent Document No. CN114444986A; hereinafter "Chengdu").
As per claim 2, Fyda in view of Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the calculation unit calculates the quantity of each returned product in the next time period based on one of algorithms of eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Transformer.
Chengdu, however, teaches that an XGBoost algorithm may be used to predict a quantity of defective products (products needing repairs) produced. (Chengdu: paragraph [0187-188]) Chengdu teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Fyda in view of Lin for the benefit of allowing for the root cause of product defects to be determined and providing a prediction method with high predictive power and effectiveness with a small sample size. (Chengdu: paragraphs [007-74]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chengdu with the teachings of Fyda in view of Lin to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fyda in view of Lin further in view of Agarwal et al. (U.S. PG Pub. NO. 20190163805; hereinafter "Agarwal").
As per claim 9, Fyda in view of Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the receiving unit receives the data of historical returned products from a cloud system through a network.
Agarwal, however, teaches that a management platform 220 may receive historical item return data from an entity server over a network in a cloud based system. (Agarwal: paragraphs [0035, 41, 96], Fig. 2) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Fyda in view of Lin, or by Agarwal. Executing the calculations by retrieving information at a management device over a network in a cloud based system does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Fyda in view of Lin. 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 Agarwal with the teachings of Fyda in view of Lin, 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.
Claims 10-11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fyda in view of Lin further in view of Trandal et al. (U.S. Patent. No. 8295452B1; hereinafter "Trandal").
As per claim 10, Fyda in view of Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the output unit transmits the corresponding data to a presentation unit.
Fyda teaches that historical return rates of similar products may be used to predict future return rates of a product at hand for three months’ worth of sales. (Fyda: paragraph [0013-14]) Lin further teaches the estimation of forthcoming products for a future period of time which multiplies the number of returned products by a returned ratio which represents the percentage of returned products which can be repaired (those with repair benefits). (Lin: paragraphs [0015-20]) The motivations to combine Lin persist. Fyda further teaches that purchase orders may be generated and output for replenishment of items deemed to be insufficient to run a production schedule for repairing the part. (Fyda: paragraphs [0015, 19])
Trandal, however, teaches that an output may be presented on a display which allows the user to order replacement parts expected to be needed in the future at a respective time interval. (Trandal: col. 18 lines 23-43, Fig. 28) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Fyda in view of Lin, or by Trandal. Displaying the purchase order of Fyda on the display of Trandal does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Fyda in view of Lin. 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 Trandal with the teachings of Fyda in view of Lin, 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.
As per claim 11, Fyda teaches:
A calculation system for calculating quantities of materials required for repairing returned products, the calculation system comprising:
Fyda teaches a system and method for processing and repairing returned products. (Fyda: abstract) Fyda teaches maintaining a reverse BOM on parts, wherein the replacement rate of parts is used to predict necessary amounts of parts that need to be on hand to handle repairs of returned products. (Fyda: paragraph [0013-14-17])
With respect to the following limitation:
a receiving unit for receiving data of historical returned products;
Fyda teaches that historical return rates of similar products may be used to predict future return rates of a product at hand. (Fyda: paragraph [0013-14]) Fyda, however, does not appear to explicitly teach a receiving unit for receiving information.
Lin, however, teaches that a manufacturer computer 10 may receive product information over a network 30. (Lin: paragraph [0014], Fig. 1) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Fyda, or by Lin. Executing the system of Fyda using the computer of Lin does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Fyda. 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 Lin with the teachings of Fyda, 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.
Fyda in view of Lin further teaches:
a calculation unit for calculating a quantity of each returned product in a next time period based on the data of historical returned products;
Fyda teaches that historical return rates of similar products may be used to predict future return rates of a product at hand for three months’ worth of sales. (Fyda: paragraph [0013-14]) Lin further teaches the estimation of forthcoming products for a future period of time which multiplies the number of returned products by a returned ratio which represents the percentage of returned products which can be repaired (those with repair benefits). (Lin: paragraphs [0015-20]) Lin teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Fyda for the benefit of providing a precise estimation which can significantly reduce inventory and associated costs. (Lin: paragraph [0015]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lin with the teachings of Fyda to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
a determination unit for selecting returned products with repair benefits in the next time period by filtering out returned products without repair benefits, and calculating a quantity of each material required for repairing the returned products with repair benefits in the next time period, thereby generating corresponding data of the quantity of the each material required for repairing the returned products with repair benefits in the next time period;
Fyda teaches that historical return rates of similar products may be used to predict future return rates of a product at hand for three months’ worth of sales. (Fyda: paragraph [0013-14]) Lin further teaches the estimation of forthcoming products for a future period of time which multiplies the number of returned products by a returned ratio which represents the percentage of returned products which can be repaired (those with repair benefits). (Lin: paragraphs [0015-20]) The motivations to combine Lin persist. Fyda further teaches that purchase orders may be generated and output for replenishment of items deemed to be insufficient to run a production schedule for repairing the part. (Fyda: paragraphs [0015, 19])
With respect to the following limitation:
and an output unit for outputting the corresponding data to a presentation unit, allowing the presentation unit to physically present the corresponding data.
Fyda teaches that historical return rates of similar products may be used to predict future return rates of a product at hand for three months’ worth of sales. (Fyda: paragraph [0013-14]) Lin further teaches the estimation of forthcoming products for a future period of time which multiplies the number of returned products by a returned ratio which represents the percentage of returned products which can be repaired (those with repair benefits). (Lin: paragraphs [0015-20]) The motivations to combine Lin persist. Fyda further teaches that purchase orders may be generated and output for replenishment of items deemed to be insufficient to run a production schedule for repairing the part. (Fyda: paragraphs [0015, 19])
Trandal, however, teaches that an output may be presented on a display which allows the user to order replacement parts expected to be needed in the future at a respective time interval. (Trandal: col. 18 lines 23-43, Fig. 28) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Fyda in view of Lin, or by Trandal. Displaying the purchase order of Fyda on the display of Trandal does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Fyda in view of Lin. 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 Trandal with the teachings of Fyda in view of Lin, 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.
As per claim 18, Fyda in view of Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the determination unit calculates the quantity of the each material required for repairing the returned products with repair benefits in the next time period based on a correlation coefficient.
Fyda teaches that historical return rates of similar products may be used to predict future return rates of a product at hand for three months’ worth of sales. (Fyda: paragraph [0013-14]) Lin further teaches the estimation of forthcoming products for a future period of time which multiplies the number of returned products by a returned ratio (a correlation coefficient) which represents the percentage of returned products which can be repaired (those with repair benefits). (Lin: paragraphs [0015-20]) The motivations to combine Lin persist. Fyda further teaches that purchase orders may be generated and output for replenishment of items deemed to be insufficient to run a production schedule for repairing the part. (Fyda: paragraphs [0015, 19])
As per claim 20, Fyda in view of Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the presentation unit comprises a display configured to display the corresponding data or a printer to print out the corresponding data.
Fyda teaches that historical return rates of similar products may be used to predict future return rates of a product at hand for three months’ worth of sales. (Fyda: paragraph [0013-14]) Lin further teaches the estimation of forthcoming products for a future period of time which multiplies the number of returned products by a returned ratio which represents the percentage of returned products which can be repaired (those with repair benefits). (Lin: paragraphs [0015-20]) The motivations to combine Lin persist. Fyda further teaches that purchase orders may be generated and output for replenishment of items deemed to be insufficient to run a production schedule for repairing the part. (Fyda: paragraphs [0015, 19]) Trandal, as outlined above, teaches that an output may be presented on a display which allows the user to order replacement parts expected to be needed in the future at a respective time interval. (Trandal: col. 18 lines 23-43, Fig. 28) The motivation to combine Trandal persists.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fyda in view of Lin further in view of Trandal and further in view of Agarwal.
As per claim 19, Fyda in view of Lin further in view of Trandal teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the receiving unit receives the data of historical returned products from a cloud system through a network.
Agarwal, however, teaches that a management platform 220 may receive historical item return data from an entity server over a network in a cloud based system. (Agarwal: paragraphs [0035, 41, 96], Fig. 2) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Fyda in view of Lin further in view of Trandal, or by Agarwal. Executing the calculations by retrieving information at a management device over a network in a cloud based system does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Fyda in view of Lin further in view of Trandal. 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 Agarwal with the teachings of Fyda in view of Lin further in view of Trandal, 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.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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