DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgement
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/21/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1,10, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-5, 9-14, 18-23, and 27 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-5, 9-14, 18-23, and 27 is maintained because new matter still remains. See details below.
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/21/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-5, 9-14, 18-23, and 27 have been fully considered. The Applicant argues that (i) claim 1 is directed to providing job status utilizing location data, vibration data, and speed data from IoTs attached to a plurality of assets when the plurality of assets do not have access to a cellular network so that a customer can be provided an alert indicating an asset's job status even when there is no cellular network access by evaluating the location data, vibration data, and the speed data. This is an improvement in the technical field of alerting a customer of a job status of an asset even when the asset has no cellular network access. ; and (ii) the independent claims are similar to the claims in Ex Parte Desjardins in the aspect that includes a machine learning process to perform an evaluation of location data, vibration data, and speed data and that the claims includes machine learning.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with all arguments. The Examiner submits that based on the 101 Step 2A (prong 2) evaluation of the additional elements recited in the claims individually and in combination, the additional elements do not improve upon the functioning of a computer or improve upon another technology. None of the assets, IoT devices, computing devices, and/or machine learning functions are enhanced, modified, and/or improved by the Applicant’s process. Improving an alert to a customer regarding job status is not an improvement in technology. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion on a particular technological improvement. MPEP 2106.05 (a), states that if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The Applicant’s claims nor specification reflect an improvement in technology.
The Examiner also submits that the Applicant’s claims are similar to Ex Parte Desjardins claims with the respect of the claims being directed to an abstract idea and reciting the use of “machine learning” technology. However, the distinction comes in at Step 2A (prong 2). Ex Parte Desjardins claims reflected an improvement in machine learning technology that was supported in the specification. The Applicant’s claims nor specification reflect such an improvement. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5, 9-14, 18-23, and 27 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.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 include the following limitations that are not supported in the Applicant’s specification:
Claims 1 and 19 recite the limitations of “determining that each of the plurality of assets does not have access to a cellular network to provide a job status of the each one of the plurality of assets resulting in a first determination;”.
Claim 10 recite the limitation of “…wherein the storage database receives…location data of sensors of the loT device via location tracking device resulting in received location data, vibration data from the sensors of the loT device attached to each one of the plurality of assets, and speed data from the loT device attached to each one of the plurality of assets in response to detecting that the each of the plurality of assets does not have access to a cellular network to provide a job status of the each one of the plurality of assets; and “ a decision system including a processor, wherein the decision system determines that each of the plurality of assets does not have access to a cellular network to provide a job status of the each one of the plurality of assets resulting in a first determination, and based on the first determination,”.
The Applicant’s specification does not support the underlined portions of the claim limitations above. Paragraph [0022] of the Applicant’s specification states that "Operators of the IoT assets, for example, driver of the asset performing jobs may not have access to cellular connectivity throughout their job performance, in which case status of the job may be tracked or monitored using location of the equipment, vibration data speed data, and run-time of parts of the moving asset." Para [0022] states that an operator such as a driver (i.e. human) may not have access to cellular connectivity and not the plurality of assets. The claims do not recite an operator or an operator’s device not having access to cellular connectivity. Also, the specification does not state or describe how the computer or decision system determines that each of the plurality of assets does not have access to a cellular network to provide a job status. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 19 contain new matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Dependent claims 2-5, 9, 11-14, 18, 20-23, and 27 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 1-5, 9-14, 18-23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, “System and Method for Providing Job Status Information of Assets”, is directed to an abstract idea, specifically “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination provide mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Step 1: Claims 1-5, 9-14, 18-23, and 27 are directed to a statutory category, namely a process (claims 1-5 and 9), a machine (claims 10-14 and 18) and a manufacture (claims 19-23 and 27).
Step 2A (1): Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea of Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, based on the following claim limitations: “providing job status information of a plurality of assets..; receiving job information for one or more jobs; initiating a receipt of location data…, vibration data …, and speed data…; … deriving run-time of parts of the each one of the plurality of assets from the location data, the vibration data, and the speed data; determining that each of the plurality of assets does not have access to a cellular network to provide a job status of the each one of the plurality of assets resulting in a first determination; based on the first determination, evaluating the received location data, the vibration data, the speed data, and run-time of parts of the each one of the plurality of assets with respect to the received job information for the one or more jobs to determine job status of the each one of the plurality of assets…based on a specified condition, wherein the evaluation of the vibration data includes processing the vibration data along with slowly moving trend for removal of noise and determining that the vibration data is between a predetermined acceptable range, wherein the acceptable range is defined by a lower-bound (LB) and an upper-bound (UB) level of vibration, wherein the acceptable range of vibration is determined… based on historical data gathered…, wherein the vibration data is processed through one of: a low pass filter, high pass filter, or a combination thereof to minimize one of a false positive or false negative resulting in processed vibration data, and the evaluation of the speed data includes deriving trend of speed from various sized windows of time series of the speed data, using weighted linear sum calculation for adjusting speed factor resulting in a resultant adjusted speed factor; using the resultant adjusted speed factor along with the processed vibration data to determine a state of the each one of the plurality of assets…; generating a group of alerts regarding the job status based on the state of the each one of the plurality of assets…, wherein a first portion of the group of alerts indicate a job has been completed and a second portion of the group of alerts indicate an expected time for a job to be completed; providing the group of alerts regarding the job status…; determining that a first alert of the first portion of the group of alerts indicates that a job has been completed resulting in a second determination; and providing the first alert…;” (claims 1 and 19); “providing job status information of a plurality of assets; …receives job information for one or more jobs resulting in received job information, and location data…resulting in received location data, vibration data…, and speed data…in response to detecting that the each of the plurality of assets does not have access to a cellular network to provide a job status of the each one of the plurality of assets; …determines that each of the plurality of assets does not have access to a cellular network to provide a job status of the each one of the plurality of assets resulting in a first determination, and based on the first determination, evaluates the received location data, the vibration data, and the speed data, and derives run-time of parts of at least one asset with respect to the received job information for the one or more jobs to determine the job status of the each one of the plurality of assets…based on a specified condition, wherein the run-time of parts of the each one of the plurality of assets derived from the location data, the vibration data, and the speed data, wherein evaluation of the vibration data includes processing the vibration data along with slowly moving trend for removal of noise and determining that the vibration data is between a predetermined acceptable range, wherein the acceptable range is defined by a lower-bound (LB) and an upper-bound (UB) level of vibration, wherein the acceptable range of vibration is determined using machine learning process based on historical data gathered…,wherein the vibration data is processed through one of: a low pass filter, high pass filter, or a combination thereof to minimize one of false positive or false negative resulting in processed vibration data, and the evaluation of the speed data includes deriving trend of speed from various sized windows of time series of the speed data, using weighted linear sum calculation for adjusting speed factor resulting in a resultant adjusted speed factor, using the resultant adjusted speed factor along with the processed vibration data to determine a state of the each one of the plurality of assets…; generating a group of alerts regarding the job status based on the state of the each one of the plurality of assets… wherein a first portion of the group of alerts indicate a job has been completed and a second portion of the group of alerts indicate an expected time for a job to be completed;…provide the group of alerts regarding the job status,…determines that a first alert of the first portion of the group of alerts indicates that a job has been completed resulting in a determination,…, …provides the first alert,…” (claim 10). These claims describe a process of evaluating and analyzing job information and asset data to determine job status of the asset and the worker handling the asset. Dependent claims 2-5, 9, 11-14, 18, 20-23, and 27 further describe the job information and the evaluation process of the asset data. Evaluating and analyzing job information and data to determine job status, moving trends/averages, an acceptable range of vibration, an adjusted speed factor, weighted linear sum calculation, and state of an asset are actions that can be practically performed in the human mind with pen and paper via observation, evaluation using math, and judgement. Therefore, these limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the abstract grouping of Mental Processes which include concepts performed in the human mind such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Mental Processes include claims directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Examiner submits that the claims are also directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as the jobs information reflect activities performed by a worker and the asset data reflect equipment used by the worker to perform the job. The claims also reflect a process of monitoring worker activities while performing a job via data collection. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity abstract group encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Therefore, claims 1-5, 9-14, 18-23, and 27 are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Step 2A (2): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 3-4, 9-10, 12-13, 18-19, 21-22, and 27 recite additional elements of “a computer, a plurality of assets, wherein an IoT device is attached to each one of the plurality of assets, the computer-implemented method is implemented using a processing system including a processor, a cellular network, sensors of the IoT devices attached to the each one of the plurality of assets, receiving location data, vibration data, and speed data from the IoT device attached to the each one of the plurality of assets; machine learning, a user interface, a computing device associated with a customer, providing the first alert to a computing device associated with a customer, wherein the computing device presents the second alert to the customer via the computing device, the IoT device includes a communication device enabled for cellular or other wireless communication via SIMs installed in the communication device, a system comprising a storage database and a decision system including a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium having executable instructions stored therein that, when executed, cause one or more processors corresponding to a system…, wherein an IoT (Internet of Things) device is attached to each one of the plurality of assets, having a database, a decision system, and a user interface to perform operations”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not recite (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field and (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself and (c) implementing the abstract idea with or by use of a particular machine, (d) effecting a particular transformation or reduction of an article, or (e) applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These additional elements evaluated individually and in combination are viewed as computing, data gathering, and display devices that are used to perform the abstract idea of evaluating and analyzing job information and asset data to determine job status. Limitations that recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea are not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “receiving location data, vibration data, and speed data from sensors of the IoT device attached to the each one of the plurality of assets” reflects a mere data gathering step and is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. pre-solution activity) to the judicial exception. Also, the additional element of “providing the first alert to a computing device associated with a customer, wherein the computing device presents the second alert to the customer via the computing device” is also considered an insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. post-solution activity) to the judicial exception. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), the courts have found that mere data gathering activities to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. Therefore, claims 1-5, 9-14, 18-23, and 27 do not include individual or a combination of additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and thus are not patent eligible.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 3-4, 9-10, 12-13, 18-19, 21-22, and 27 recite additional elements of “a computer, a plurality of assets, wherein an IoT device is attached to each one of the plurality of assets, the computer-implemented method is implemented using a processing system including a processor, a cellular network, sensors of the IoT devices attached to the each one of the plurality of assets, receiving location data, vibration data, and speed data from the IoT device attached to the each one of the plurality of assets; machine learning, a user interface, a computing device associated with a customer, providing the first alert to a computing device associated with a customer, wherein the computing device presents the second alert to the customer via the computing device, the IoT device includes a communication device enabled for cellular or other wireless communication via SIMs installed in the communication device, a system comprising a storage database and a decision system including a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium having executable instructions stored therein that, when executed, cause one or more processors corresponding to a system…, wherein an IoT (Internet of Things) device is attached to each one of the plurality of assets, having a database, a decision system, and a user interface to perform operations”. As per the Applicant’s specification an asset can be a vehicle, generator, etc. [0003]; an IoT device may include sensors [0029]; machine learning include a learning algorithm implemented in the cloud or on a user device [0033]; communication devices could be devices using a radio module, Wi-Fi, or any other wireless communication technology [0030]; a decision system learns and analyzes data and implements a learning algorithm [0033]; the computer-readable medium can be any apparatus that can contain, store, communicate, propagate, or transport the program for use by or in connection with the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device and can include semiconductor or solid state memory, magnetic tape, a removable computer diskette, etc. ([0060]-[0061]); and a user interface is displayed on a tablet, cell phone, PC, or the like [0056]. These additional elements evaluated individually and in combination are viewed as mere instructions to apply or implement the abstract idea on a computer. The use of the machine learning models/algorithms are considered instructions to apply or implement on a computer. Applying an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “receiving location data, vibration data, and speed data from sensors of the IoT device attached to the each one of the plurality of assets” reflects a mere data gathering step and is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. pre-solution activity) and “providing the second alert to a computing device associated with a customer, wherein the computing device presents the second alert to the customer via the computing device” is also considered an insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. post-solution activity) to the judicial exception. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Therefore, claims 1-5, 9-14, 18-23, and 27 do not include individual or a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The closest prior art(s) to the claimed invention include US: Bernier et al. (US 2017/0349058 A1) “Fleet Management System for Outdoor Power Equipment”, Cella et al. (US 2019/0033846 A1) “Methods and Systems for Detection in an Industrial Internet of Things…”, Lee et al. (US 2021/0058307 A1) “IOT Stream Data Quality Measurement Indicator and Profiling Method and System”, and Nasir, A. (US 2017/0195424 A1) “Internet of Things (IoT) Device Activation and Management”; FOR: Kenta, Y. (JP-2019071603-A) “Apparatus, Method and Program for Transmitting and Receiving Data To and From IoT Device”, and NPL: G. H. Truelove, M. A. Foster, V. K. Kohli and T. G. Raslear, "Real-time asset tracking and monitoring using low-cost cellular networks," Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/ASME Joint Rail Conference, Atlanta, GA, 2006, pp. 315-318. However, none of the prior art(s) alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims 1, 10, and 19.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Ayanna Minor whose telephone number is (571)272-3605. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624