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 . Claims 22-41 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 24 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 24 and 34 recite “the sensor,” where, for purposes of consistency, this should read “the at least one sensor.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claims 22 and 32 are to a method (i.e., a process) and therefore pass Step 1. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or are significantly more.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claims 22 and 32 is (language in single brackets applicable to claim 22 only; language in double brackets applicable to claim 32 only):
receive usage data for at least one piece of equipment, store the usage data, process the usage data, and implement an adaptive preventative maintenance process;
determining a first maintenance interval estimate associated with the equipment, wherein the first maintenance interval estimate comprises an elapsed usage at which the equipment is estimated to require replacement or maintenance, wherein the first maintenance interval estimate is expressed according to a usage metric associated with the equipment and is constrained within an operating band defined by a lower usage value and an upper usage value;
receiving a replacement indication reflecting a replacement of the equipment, and storing the replacement indication, the replacement indication identifying a replacement time point associated with the replacement;
determining a second maintenance interval estimate associated with the equipment in response to the replacement indication, wherein the second maintenance interval estimate comprises an elapsed usage at which the equipment is estimated to require replacement or maintenance, wherein the second maintenance interval estimate is expressed according to the usage metric associated with the equipment and is determined using an elapsed usage of the equipment spanning from a reference time point associated with the first maintenance interval estimate to the replacement time point;
receiving an adjustment parameter that comprises a failure parameter value associated with a detected failure of the equipment or a preventative parameter value associated with a preventive maintenance of the equipment, and receiving the failure parameter value and/or the preventative parameter value from a user;
adjusting the second maintenance interval estimate based on the failure parameter value and/or the preventative parameter value and a drift value based the first maintenance interval estimate;
receiving the usage data, storing the usage data, and the usage data comprising a time of operation of the equipment, a number of actuation cycles of the equipment, a number of operational cycles of the equipment, a number of objects processed by the equipment, a quantity of material processed by the equipment, and/or an operating temperature of the equipment;
automatically updating the elapsed usage of the equipment, based on the usage data received, and storing the elapsed usage relative to the reference time point;
automatically determining when the elapsed usage exceeds the second maintenance interval estimate; and
generating and transmitting a notification associated with the equipment, the notification indicating the elapsed usage exceeds the second maintenance interval estimate, wherein the notification informs the user to replace the equipment or perform maintenance on the equipment [and includes at least one of an identifier of the equipment, a location of the equipment, the second maintenance interval estimate, and a present value of the elapsed usage],
[[wherein the adjusting the second maintenance interval estimate based on the failure parameter value and/or the preventative parameter value further comprises:
adjusting the second maintenance interval estimate to a degree based on the failure parameter value; or
adjusting the second maintenance interval estimate to another degree based on the preventative parameter value.]]
The limitations above constitute a process that is comparable to following rules or instructions relating to determining a degree to which a maintenance interval estimate is adjusted or determining an adjusted maintenance schedule. This is supported by applicant’s specification, as seen in para. [0002] to [0004]. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations of social activities, teaching, following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the steps above could be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper. In this case, an individual, acting as an administrator, could accomplish the italicized limitations above relating to determining a degree to which a maintenance interval estimate is adjusted or determining an adjusted maintenance schedule. For example, an administrator might revise a planned maintenance schedule based on an “adjustment parameter,” e.g., the particular time of day when maintenance staff are available. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
Claims 22 and 32 include the following additional elements: implementing a computer system configured to; by the computer system; in a [the] database; the usage data being generated by at least one sensor, a counter, and/or a measurement device associated with the equipment and automatically generated during operation of the equipment; the replacement indication being provided by the at least one sensor, the counter, the measurement device, a user input via a user interface, and/or another system; via the user interface and/or a user device; from the at least one sensor, the counter, and/or the measurement device associated with the equipment; to a user interface and/or a user device of a user.
These elements are recited at a high level of generality and are simply being used to apply the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant’s own specification describes a generic computer in para. [0094]. The elements in combination are simply a generic computer system that receives data.
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, it is concluded that the additional claim elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
(While examiner has interpreted the additional elements as merely facilitating the tasks of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), some of the additional elements (e.g., the usage data being generated by at least one sensor, a counter, and/or a measurement device associated with the equipment and automatically generated during operation of the equipment; from the at least one sensor, the counter, and/or the measurement device associated with the equipment), alternatively, do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). This does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application, when these elements are viewed alone or in combination with the other additional elements highlighted previously.)
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Examiner proceeds by carrying over the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2, i.e. the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, where these generic computing elements are simply being used to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Applicant’s own specification describes a generic computer in para. [0094]. The elements in combination are simply a generic computer system that receives data. These elements are not “significantly more,” when viewed alone or in combination.
Therefore, per Step 2B, it is concluded that the additional claim elements, alone and in combination, do not amount to significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
(While examiner has interpreted the additional elements as merely facilitating the tasks of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), some of the additional elements (e.g., the usage data being generated by at least one sensor, a counter, and/or a measurement device associated with the equipment and automatically generated during operation of the equipment; from the at least one sensor, the counter, and/or the measurement device associated with the equipment), alternatively, do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). This is not significantly more, when these elements are viewed alone or in combination with the other additional elements highlighted previously.)
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Dependent claims 23-31 and 33-41 merely narrow the abstract idea with additional steps and/or information and would fall into the same grouping as set forth above. Further, some of the dependent claims recite further additional elements, beyond those highlighted above:
Claims 23 and 33: wherein the notification comprises an email message, a text message, an automatic phone message, and/or a communication presented on the user interface; wherein the equipment is implemented in a liquid dispensing system.
Claims 24 and 34: the sensor.
Claims 26 and 36: via a different transmission medium.
Claims 29 and 39: wherein the second notification comprises an email message, a text message, an automatic phone message, and/or a communication presented on the user interface.
Similar to above, these further additional elements are generic computing elements applied to the tasks of the narrowed abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or generally linking the narrowed abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., wherein the equipment is implemented in a liquid dispensing system; see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Whether viewed alone or in combination with the previously highlighted additional elements, this does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 22-41 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/9/26 have been fully considered.
Claim Objections
Applicant is thanked for their amendments overcoming the previous claim objections. Note, however, the new objections above.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
After providing an overview of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicant offers:
The amended independent claims (e.g., Claim 22) recite specific, interrelated technical mechanisms that were not present or emphasized in the Examiner's abstraction:
1. Closed-Loop, Sensor-Driven Adaptive Control
The claims now explicitly require:
Automatically generated usage data from sensors/counters/devices during equipment operation
Determination of maintenance intervals based on actual measured elapsed usage spanning defined reference and replacement time points
Iterative recalculation of maintenance intervals based on real-world replacement events
These features define a feedback-controlled system that continuously refines maintenance intervals based on empirical equipment performance, not merely a rule- based schedule.
This is a technological process tied to physical equipment operation, not a mental or organizational activity.
2. Constrained and Conditioned Interval Adjustment (Drift-Based Control)
The amended claims now require that:
adjustment of the maintenance interval occurs only when a quantified non- negative difference exceeds a drift value based on a predefined percentage
This introduces:
a quantitative stability constraint, and
a threshold-controlled update mechanism preventing noise or minor fluctuations
This is a specific control algorithm applied to equipment monitoring-not a generic "rule" or human judgment.
3. Operating Band Constraints Tied to Equipment Characteristics
The claims further require:
that the maintenance interval estimate is constrained within an operating band defined by lower and upper usage values
This reflects:
engineering limits imposed on physical equipment operation,
ensuring that computed maintenance intervals remain within permissible operational thresholds.
Such constraints are not abstract-they are grounded in the physical tolerances and behavior of equipment systems.
4. Differentiated Adjustment Based on Failure vs. Preventative Events
Dependent claims (e.g., Claims 25, 28) recite:
distinct adjustment behaviors based on failure vs. preventative replacement, and
different magnitudes of interval adjustment depending on failure modes
This introduces:
failure-mode-aware adaptation, and
differential weighting of empirical data,
which reflects engineering-specific reliability modeling, not a generalized decision process.
5. Automated Detection, Updating, and Notification Triggering
The claims require:
automatic updating of elapsed usage using sensor data,
automatic determination of threshold exceedance, and
triggered system notifications including equipment identifiers, location, and measured values
These operations form a distributed monitoring and control system interacting with real-world equipment, not a conceptual workflow.
C. Integration into a Practical Application (Step 2A, Prong 2)
The Examiner concludes that the additional elements merely apply the abstract idea using generic components.
Respectfully, the amended claims go beyond generic application by:
requiring sensor-derived operational data tied to physical equipment,
performing iterative recalibration based on actual replacement events,
applying quantitative drift thresholds and operating bands, and
enforcing automated system responses (e.g., notifications, interval updates)
These features collectively:
Impose specific technological constraints
Define how data is transformed into control decisions
Improve accuracy and stability of maintenance interval determination
Thus, the claims are integrated into a practical, industrial equipment monitoring and control application, not merely linked to a field of use.
D. The Claims Are Not Mental Processes or "Organizing Human Activity"
The Examiner asserts that the claimed steps could be performed mentally or by an administrator.
This is inconsistent with the amended claims, which require:
continuous tracking of multi-dimensional usage data (time, cycles, temperature, etc.),
automated updates and recalculations based on sensor inputs, and
real-time threshold monitoring and notification triggering
Such operations:
depend on machine-scale data acquisition,
involve iterative computational processing, and
are infeasible to perform mentally or manually in practice.
Accordingly, the claims do not recite a mental process.
E. The Claims Provide "Significantly More" (Step 2B)
The Examiner concludes that the claims do not include an inventive concept beyond generic computing.
However, the amended claims recite a specific combination of:
sensor-based usage acquisition,
time-bounded usage calculations tied to replacement events,
drift-threshold-controlled adaptation,
operating-band constraints,
failure-mode-based adjustment weighting, and
automated notification triggering tied to threshold exceedance
This combination yields:
improved reliability modeling,
reduced maintenance uncertainty, and
adaptive refinement of replacement intervals under real-world operating conditions
These features, taken together, are not conventional or routine and provide a technical improvement in equipment maintenance systems.
III. Conclusion
The amended claims:
correct the identified informalities, and
recite a technological, sensor-driven adaptive control system for determining maintenance intervals
that:
is integrated into a practical application,
cannot be performed mentally, and
provides significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 should be withdrawn.
While well taken, examiner remains unpersuaded. Specifically, arguments 1-5 focus on the improvements to the abstract idea. The following remarks by applicant are all directed to such:
determination of maintenance intervals based on actual measured elapsed usage spanning defined reference and replacement time points
iterative recalculation of maintenance intervals based on real-world replacement events
adjustment of the maintenance interval occurs only when a quantified non- negative difference exceeds a drift value based on a predefined percentage
that the maintenance interval estimate is constrained within an operating band defined by lower and upper usage values
distinct adjustment behaviors based on failure vs. preventative replacement
different magnitudes of interval adjustment depending on failure modes
automatic updating of elapsed usage; and
automatic determination of threshold exceedance
These improvement pertain to determining maintenance intervals according to various thresholds, i.e., a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes. Further, those claim features that approximate additional elements – e.g.,
automatically generated usage data from sensors/counters/devices during equipment operation; and
triggered system notifications including equipment identifiers, location, and measured values –
simply describe the generic computing elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea and/or expand on the field of use. Per MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h), this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more, whether these elements are viewed alone or in combination.
Arguments C and E are also not persuasive. Specifically –
requiring sensor-derived operational data tied to physical equipment
performing iterative recalibration based on actual replacement events
applying quantitative drift thresholds and operating bands
enforcing automated system responses (e.g., notifications, interval updates)
improved reliability modeling
reduced maintenance uncertainty; and
adaptive refinement of replacement intervals under real-world operating conditions –
reiterate improvements pertaining to determining maintenance intervals according to various thresholds, i.e., a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes.
With respect to argument D, examiner notes that applicant has appeared to conflate the abstract idea, considered at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, considered at Steps 2A Prong Two and 2B. The abstract idea highlighted by examiner includes broadly recited determining, adjusting, and generating steps. An administrator could easily accomplish these abstract tasks, contrary to applicant’s assertions. The additional element of the claim – e.g., implementing a computer system configured to; by the computer system; in a [the] database; the usage data being generated by at least one sensor, a counter, and/or a measurement device associated with the equipment and automatically generated during operation of the equipment; etc. – do little more than facilitate said tasks and/or elaborate on the field of use.
Lastly, applicant’s present amendments and remarks do not address the concerns raised by the Board on pages 11 and 13:
The methods may be performed on general purpose or special purpose computer systems, environments, and configurations including personal computers, server computers, laptop devices, and multiprocessor systems including set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and distributed computing environments of any of these devices that Appellant does not purport to have invented or improved. See Spec. ' 94.
Such a "wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of 'additional featur[e]' that provides any "practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 ("[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."); Trinity, 72 4th at 1362 (performing an abstract idea on a handheld device, web servers, and database did not make it eligible); Killian, 45 F.4th at 1382-83 (a generic computer implementation is not sufficient); BSG Tech LLC BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[C]laims are not saved from abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than a generic computer."); Two-Way Media Ltd. V. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (carrying out abstract ideas on generic computers is insufficient); Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC V. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding a customized user interface was abstract); TLI, 823 F.3d at 613 (using a mobile telephone system did not make the claims non-abstract); Intellectual Ventures I LLC V. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding an interactive interface that tailored web pages to a specific individual was a generic computer element).
[…]
"Software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can, and the improvements can be accomplished through either route." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. "[T]o be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself." Customedia Techs., LLC V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Interval Licensing LLC V. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (ineligible software "did not recite any assertedly inventive technology for improving computers as tools and/or because the elements of the asserted invention were so result-based that they amounted to patenting the patent-ineligible concept itself"). Here, the claims do not recite adaptive maintenance system technical configurations. Cf. Appeal Br. 8-11. Even if the method proves accuracy or efficiency, such benefits result from a generic computer implementation. See Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. V. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data synthesis technology was abstract even if it produced "life altering consequences"); In re Elbaum, No. 2023-1418, 2023 WL 8794636, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2023) (the abstract idea's usefulness or tax benefits did not confer eligibility); In re Smith, No. 2022-1310, 2022 WL 4112730, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2022) ("[U]tility is not the test for patent eligibility under the Supreme Court's cases.")); In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App'x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he fact that an abstract idea may have beneficial uses does not mean that claims embodying the abstract idea are rendered patent eligible."); Tenstreet, LLCv. DriverReach, LLC, 826 F. App'x 925, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("The test for patent-eligible subject matter is not whether the claims are advantageous over the previous method.").
Though applicant has amended the claims, examiner maintains the position articulated in the Board’s decision is still relevant: the claims do not recite adaptive maintenance system technical configurations, and even if the method proves accuracy or efficiency, such benefits result from a generic computer implementation.
Therefore, examiner maintains the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20140206328, which teaches: A processor-based personal electronic device (such as a smartphone) uses combinatorial logic to automatically adjust alarms, notifications reminders, and the like based on data from device event histories, on-board sensors, user-entered data, and similar information. One particular representative embodiment comprises a process for automatically deleting an unneeded reminder. For example, a user may have a personal electronic device that is set to issue a reminder for a meeting in a certain place, on a certain date at a certain time. If location sensors detect that the user is already at the certain place on the certain date at (or reasonably before) the certain time the now superfluous reminder is automatically cancelled.
US 20140350989, which teaches: Systems and methods of the invention relate to creating a schedule to perform a maintenance procedure on a client asset based on a usage of the client asset. A pre-defined interval of time to perform a maintenance procedure on a client asset and a portion of real time usage data for the client asset can be collected and/or received by an aggregation component in which a manager component can be configured to define an updated interval of time to perform the maintenance procedure based at least in part upon a comparison of the pre-defined interval of time and the real time usage date for the client asset.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights