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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 18 September 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the box identifying that a full translation into the English language is checked for each foreign patent document and the first non-patent literature document, but only one of the foreign patent documents is translated into the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. An English language translation of the Abstract is not considered an English translation meriting the checking of the English language translation box. While footnote 5 identifies that “Applicant is to place a check mark here if English language translation is attached”, this is with respect to the document itself. The Abstract is considered a concise explanation of relevance of the document which is distinctly different from a translation. See at least MPEP 609.04(a) Content Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement, section (II) Legible Copies, which recites
“37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii) states that if a written English language translation of a non-English language document, or portion thereof, is within the possession, custody or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c), a copy of the translation shall accompany the statement. Translations are not required to be filed unless they have been reduced to writing and are actually translations of what is contained in the non-English language information. If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiners in conducting searches.”
See also MPEP 609.04(a)(III) Concise Explanation of Relevance for Non-English Language Information which also at least more explicitly recites that “[e]ach information disclosure statement must further include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information listed that is not in the English language. The concise explanation may be either separate from the specification or part of the specification. If the concise explanation is part of the specification, the IDS listing should include the page(s) or line(s) numbers where the concise explanation is located in the specification” and that “[s]ubmission of an English language abstract of a reference, such as one generated by a foreign patent office, may fulfill the requirement for a concise explanation.” Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 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:
“acquisition means for acquiring environment information” in claim 1.
“training data acquisition means for acquiring training data” in claim 1.
“providing means for executing processing for providing the target space” in claim 1.
“the training data acquisition means acquires associated log data” in claim 2.
“the training data acquisition means selects the log data related to the cause of the failure” in claim 4.
“the training data acquisition means specifies another combination of the area and the period satisfying an alternative criterion related to climate” in claim 7.
“the training data acquisition means… acquires the log data associated with the combination as the associated log data” in claim 7.
“conversation processing means for performing processing for having a conversation with the subject as an owner or an administrator of the maintenance target” in claim 8.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “acquisition means for acquiring environment information” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, Fig. 1, 7, and 8 which illustrate an acquisition unit 110 as a non-descript black box and the specification which recites in para. 34 that a “recording medium of the storage device 1040 stores a program module that achieves each function for example,… the acquisition unit 110… to be described later) of the information providing device 10.” However, at least para. 38 merely recite similar language as that claim without any meaningful description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-8 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “training data acquisition means for acquiring training data” in claim 1, “the training data acquisition means acquires associated log data” in claim 2, and “the training data acquisition means… acquires the log data associated with the combination as the associated log data” in claim 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, Fig. 1, 7, and 8 which illustrate a training data acquisition unit 120 as a non-descript black box and the specification which recites in para. 34 that a “recording medium of the storage device 1040 stores a program module that achieves each function for example,… the training data acquisition unit 120… to be described later) of the information providing device 10.” However, at least para. 60 of the specification merely recites similar language as the claim without any meaningful description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-8 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “providing means for executing processing for providing the target space” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, Fig. 1, 7, and 8 which illustrate a providing unit 130 as a non-descript black box and the specification which recites in para. 34 that a “recording medium of the storage device 1040 stores a program module that achieves each function for example,… the providing unit 130… to be described later) of the information providing device 10.” However, at least para. 27 of the specification merely recites similar language as the claim without any meaningful description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-8 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “the training data acquisition means selects the log data related to the cause of the failure” in claim 4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, Fig. 1, 7, and 8 which illustrate a training data acquisition unit 120 as a non-descript black box and the specification which recites in para. 34 that a “recording medium of the storage device 1040 stores a program module that achieves each function for example,… the training data acquisition unit 120… to be described later) of the information providing device 10.” However, at least para. 49 of the specification merely recites similar language as the claim without any meaningful description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “the training data acquisition means specifies another combination of the area and the period satisfying an alternative criterion related to climate” in claim 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, Fig. 1, 7, and 8 which illustrate a training data acquisition unit 120 as a non-descript black box and the specification which recites in para. 34 that a “recording medium of the storage device 1040 stores a program module that achieves each function for example,… the training data acquisition unit 120… to be described later) of the information providing device 10.” However, para. 51 of the specification merely recites similar language as the claim without any meaningful description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “conversation processing means for performing processing for having a conversation with the subject as an owner or an administrator of the maintenance target” in claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, Fig. 7 which illustrates a conversation processing unit 170 as a non-descript black box and the specification which recites in para. 34 that a “recording medium of the storage device 1040 stores a program module that achieves each function for example,… a conversation processing unit 170 to be described later) of the information providing device 10.” However, para. 55 of the specification recites the conversation processing unit performs the processing using a conversation model 30 (which is illustrated as a separate element from the conversation processing unit in Fig. 7) which is an indefinite “so-called conversation artificial intelligence (AI)”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The term “cross-reality” in each of claims 1, 9, and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cross-reality” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claims 2-8 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 9, the preamble recites “An information providing method causing a computer for providing a target space for performing training regarding maintenance of a maintenance target, the target space being a virtual space or cross-reality, to a subject of the training, to execute:” followed by a series of method steps. In other words, the preamble recites “An information providing method causing a computer… to execute” a series of method steps. It is unclear whether the series of method steps is supposed to be the information providing method or what the information providing method is that is causing a computer to execute the claimed series of method steps. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the preamble is construed as reciting “A computer-implemented information providing method for providing a target space for performing training regarding maintenance of a maintenance target, the target space being a virtual space or cross-reality, to a subject of the training, the method comprising:”.
Regarding claim 10, the preamble recites “A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer for providing a target space for performing training regarding maintenance of a maintenance target, the target space being a virtual space or cross-reality, to a subject of the training, to comprise:” followed by a series of method steps. In other words, the preamble recites “A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer… to comprise” a series of method steps. One of ordinary skill in the art understands a computer executing a series of the method steps, not a computer comprising a series of method steps. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the preamble is construed as reciting “A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer for providing a target space for performing training regarding maintenance of a maintenance target, the target space being a virtual space or cross-reality, to a subject of the training, to execute:”.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “acquisition means for acquiring environment information” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-8 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 7, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “training data acquisition means for acquiring training data” in claim 1, “the training data acquisition means acquires associated log data” in claim 2, and “the training data acquisition means… acquires the log data associated with the combination as the associated log data” in claim 7 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-8 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “providing means for executing processing for providing the target space” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-8 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 4, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the training data acquisition means selects the log data related to the cause of the failure” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI).
Regarding claim 7, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the training data acquisition means specifies another combination of the area and the period satisfying an alternative criterion related to climate” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI).
Regarding claim 8, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “conversation processing means for performing processing for having a conversation with the subject as an owner or an administrator of the maintenance target” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaggers et al. (US 11,113,987 B1, hereinafter referred to as Jaggers).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, Jaggers teaches an information providing apparatus (claim 1), an information providing method causing a computer (claim 9), and a non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer (claim 10) for providing a target space for performing training regarding maintenance of a maintenance target, the target space being a virtual space or cross-reality (Jaggers, Col. 8, lines 7-8, “virtual reality (V/R) materials (e.g., virtual assistants, etc.), and/or augmented reality (A/R) materials”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, “cross-reality” is construed as “augmented reality”.), to a subject of the training (Jaggers, Title, Training and Management of Technicians in the Service or Repair of Machines, Devices, or Machines), the information providing device comprising:
acquisition means for acquiring environment information comprising at least one of area information capable of specifying an area which the subject is in charge of and climate information related to a climate in the area (Jaggers, Col. 31, lines 14-15, “the training materials can be provided as… a virtual reality environment”; Col. 31, lines 58-61, “weather or other environmental information 309 than may have an affect on the machine, device or system can also be obtained or collected and included in the service history database 303.”);
training data acquisition means for acquiring training data that is data regarding the maintenance target and is to be reflected in the target space by using the environment information (Jaggers, Col. 8, lines 9-13, “Such training materials are configurable to provide the technician with instructions and/or assistance and/or training relevant to the diagnosis, repair, servicing or documentation of one or more operations of the machine, device, or system.” Col. 31, lines 14-15, “the training materials can be provided as… a virtual reality environment”); and
providing means for executing processing for providing the target space reflecting the training data to a communication device used by the subject (Jaggers, Col. 31, lines 11-12, “The training materials can be viewable by the technician on a display device.”).
Regarding claim 2, Jaggers teaches the information providing apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the training data acquisition means acquires associated log data that is log data during operation of the maintenance target operating under a condition associated with the environment information, and generates the training data using the associated log data (Jaggers, Col. 12, lines 43-53, “With regard to context-based information about the condition or status of the machine, device, or system, the database may incorporate specific information about the performance or behavior thereof as a function of age, conditions, etc. As an example, the database may incorporate information that a specific machine, device, or system has a record of failure when subjected to temperatures and humidities above a certain level. The temperatures to which the machine, device, or system has been subjected to can be retrievable based upon GPS location thereof by querying of weather records associated with that location.”).
Regarding claim 3, Jaggers teaches the information providing apparatus of claim 2, wherein
the associated log data comprises maintenance data related to a factor of the maintenance (Jaggers, Col. 32, lines 12-18, “Service call notes 318, which can be generated by the technician during the service call can also form an important part of the database of the machine, device or system service history. For example, the technician can provide indications of the symptoms that were observed, the diagnosis of the issue, and/or the resolution applied to the machine, device or system.”).
Regarding claim 4, Jaggers teaches the information providing apparatus of claim 3, wherein
the maintenance content comprises a cause of failure (Jaggers, Col. 12, lines 47-50, “As an example, the database may incorporate information that specific machine, device, or system has a record of failure when subjected to temperatures and humidities above a certain level.” Col. 13, lines 7-10, “If that location is pertinent to a known or anticipated failure point, the technician can be provided with information, such as diagnosis instructions or training materials associated therewith.” Col. 18, “the machine learning systems and methods can be trained to provide predictions of… failures”),
there are a plurality of types of causes of the failure (Jaggers, Col. 12, lines 47-50, “As an example, the database may incorporate information that specific machine, device, or system has a record of failure when subjected to temperatures and humidities above a certain level.” Col. 13, lines 7-10, “If that location is pertinent to a known or anticipated failure point, the technician can be provided with information, such as diagnosis instructions or training materials associated therewith.” Col. 18, “the machine learning systems and methods can be trained to provide predictions of… failures”), and
the training data acquisition means selects the log data related to the cause of the failure in which at least one of an occurrence frequency and an occurrence probability satisfies a criterion under a condition associated with the environment information, and comprises only the selected log data in the associated log data (Jaggers, at least line 43 of Col. 12 – line 59 of Col. 13 describes this.).
Regarding claim 5, Jaggers teaches the information providing apparatus of claim 2, wherein
the maintenance target is a device (Jaggers, line 67 of Col. 7 – line 3 of Col. 8, “One or more items of training material content comprising information associated with one or more machines, devices, or systems can be presented to the technician”), and
the associated log data comprises at least one of information related to an operation mode of the maintenance target, failure identification information indicating a type of a failure occurring in the maintenance target, control data used inside the maintenance target, a temperature of at least one of a periphery and an inside of the maintenance target, and a current inside the maintenance target (Jaggers, Col. 8, lines 28-39, “Information presented to and collected by the technician at the customer location can be associated with a machine learning system. In this regard, the information, for example, training materials, associated with the first machine, device, or system, the operations thereof, as well as pertinent to other tasks to be completed by the technician, can be automatically generated for presentation to the technician while on site, for example, by an automatic review of database records associated with his prior training and experience, or information about the location, the device, the customer, or other potentially relevant information, as discussed further herein.” See also at least line 43 of Col. 12 – line 59 of Col. 13 regarding context-based information about the condition or status of the machine, device or system.).
Regarding claim 6, Jaggers teaches the information providing apparatus of claim 2, wherein
the environment information comprises the area information and a period as at least a part of the climate information (Jaggers, Col. 12, lines 50-53, “The temperatures to which the machine, device, or system has been subjected to can be retrievable based upon GPS location thereof by querying of weather records associated with that location.”).
Regarding claim 7, Jaggers teaches the information providing apparatus of claim 6, wherein
in a case where the log data associated with a combination of the area information and the period cannot be obtained, the training data acquisition means specifies another combination of the area and the period satisfying an alternative criterion related to climate, and acquires the log data associated with the combination as the associated log data (Jaggers, Col. 31, lines 58-61, “weather or other environmental information 309 than may have an affect on the machine, device or system can also be obtained or collected and included in the service history database 303.”).
Regarding claim 8, Jaggers teaches the information providing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising
conversation processing means for performing processing for having a conversation with the subject as an owner or an administrator of the maintenance target (Jaggers, Col. 23, line 49-53, “an interaction with a virtual character (e.g., virtual teacher or mentor) can be provided, wherein the technician is presented with verbal instruction and/or a customer engagement scenario.” Col. 25, lines 26-28, “The expert can interact with the technician in need of training with real-time video, chat, voice, etc.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jaggers et al. (US 2021/0398054, US 11,995,582 B2, US 2024/0370792, US 2025/0190892, and US 12,505,391 B2) are closely related to the primary reference.
Linthicum et al. (US 6,826,500 B2) establishes that using virtual reality for maintenance training is old and well-known.
Tiernan et al. (US 2012/0010068) also establishes that using virtual reality for maintenance training is old and well-known.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights