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 .
The amendment filed on March 12, 2026 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 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, 12, and 19, “display a fleet view visualization comprising a listing of multiple assets in the fleet of assets simultaneously along with an indication of the respective recommended operating mode for each of at least the subset of the assets in the fleet” (claim 1, lines 55-57; claim 12, lines 45-47; claim 19, lines 43-45) is not described in the original disclosure. Instead, the original specification describes “the categorizations assigned to the failure types may take the form of textual descriptions that also represent recommended operating modes, such that when the representative categorization of the identified one or more failure types is selected, this simultaneously serves as a selection of the recommended operating mode for the given asset” (paragraph 0195).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 19, “the respective recommended operating mode is selected from a predefined set of operating mode options …” seems redundant because the respective recommended operating mode has already been determined (see claim 1, lines 31-48; claim 12, lines 25-39; claim 19, lines 23-37) and are not recited to be stored in a predefined set of operating mode options.
Claims 1, 12, and 19, “the categorization levels” (lines 50-51) lack antecedent basis. “[T]he categorization levels” should be – respective categorization levels --.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Prior Art Note
Claims 1-20 do not have prior art rejections:
The combination as claimed wherein a client device and computer-implemented method comprising the respective recommended operating mode is selected from a predefined set of operating mode options that are correlated to the categorization levels, the predefined set of operating mode options comprising at least an Inoperable mode, one or more Limited Use modes, and a Full Operation mode (claims 1, 12, 19) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 12, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to objections to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nauck et al. (US 2006/0195201) discloses methods and systems for analysing data from a monitoring system for monitoring characteristics of a dynamic system (Abstract, lines 1-2). Nauck et al. further discloses input means for receiving confirmation information from an operator (claim 1).
However, Nauck et al. does not disclose respective recommended operating mode is selected from a predefined set of operating mode options that are correlated to the categorization levels, the predefined set of operating mode options comprising at least an Inoperable mode, one or more Limited Use modes, and a Full Operation mode.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 May 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights