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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/07/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1-18 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s December 10, 2024 filing with the Office. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 12 are amended. No claims are canceled, added, or withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
The Office Action did not assert that the claims recited business methods or mathematical concepts. Remarks p. 11.
As simple a point of clarification, the prior Office action rejected the claims as directed to an abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination. See 04/08/2025 OA at p. 5.
Mechanically installing the upgraded first vehicle component at the vehicle is not a mental process performed within a computer environment. Remarks p. 12.
Respectfully, the Office agrees with Applicant’s position, but would still reject the limitation under 101. The specification provides, “If the product is an automobile component, then the driver (or some other person including the business) may install the product in the vehicle” (Spec. [342]) also see Spec [346], [406], or [462], which disclose similar teachings. Where for example as amended, “determining an upgrade of a first vehicle component of the vehicle and sending first signal to the driver describing the upgrade, wherein the upgraded first vehicle component of the vehicle is mechanically installed in the vehicle”. As claimed the signal to the driver is a type of guidance or instruction to perform a physical task (mechanically installing). This interpretation still would fall under the abstract category of certain methods of organizing human activity. That is to say the limitation is found to be the managing personal behavior of the driver to mechanically install a first vehicle component, i.e. following instructions, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Transmitting electronic control signals from a control circuit to vehicle components, receiving the electronic control signals at the components, changing the operating parameters of the components, and altering mechanical or electronic operation of vehicle components based upon the changed parameters are not mental processes but specifically recited control elements that physically alter the operation of specific devices. Remarks p. 12.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. Where the specification provides “vehicle components mentioned herein may be tuned, changed, exchanged, or altered. In some examples, electronic control signals from the control circuit902 may tune, change, or alter operating parameters of the components (e.g., tuning a radio).” (Spec. [229]).
Specifically, transmitting and receiving signals (data) are basic computer functions (see MPEP see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2)). Where the MPEP further provides the courts have found some computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. More specifically “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))” MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore these limitation neither provide a practical application or significantly more to the identified abstract idea.
With respect to the limitations of changing the operating parameters of the components, and altering mechanical or electronic operation of vehicle component bases upon the changed parameters are claimed to a high level of generality – where it is unclear how or why the change is made. Since the limitations are claimed with a high level of generality they also neither provide a practical application or significantly more to the identified abstract idea.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Electronically forming maintenance indications associated vehicle components, electronically signaling drivers, and mechanically servicing the vehicle component to enhance vehicle performance is not a recitation of a mental process that is performed within a computer environment. Remarks p. 12.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. Where the instant specification provides “the control circuit recommending or forming a recommendation for a product or service to the driver based upon the insight” (Spec. [30]). Based on the teaching of the specification the Office interprets the amended limitation of “electronically forming maintenance indications associated vehicle components” to me akin to the step a human might take in making a recommendation. Where the specification does not define “forming” it is understood to mean making an evaluation or judgment to make an opinion or recommendation. Thus this claimed limitation is found to fall within the abstract category of a mental process.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Forming customer orders for a vehicle component and transmitting the orders to manufacturers to manufacture the vehicle component, where the order automatically controls machinery at the manufacturers to create the vehicle component in not the recitation of a mental process. Remarks p. 12.
Support for the claimed limitation is “the action is forming a customer order3128 for a part to be placed in the vehicle, the order transmitted to a manufacturer causing the part to be manufactured by a manufacturer. In one example, the order (of any suitable format) is transmitted to the manufacturer. The manufacturer receives the order, and the order causes manufacturing machinery at the manufacturer (or others) create the ordered component and/or ship the ordered component” (Spec. [437]).
The limitations when interpreted in the light of the specification it falls within the abstract category of certain methods of organizing human activity – as fundamental economic practice. Where ordering and order fulfillment are fundamental economic practices. The limitation is made to a high level of generality. Where the claims and the specification are to the outcome without disclosing how the elements are carried out.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
The vehicle component is not a generic computer but is a specific component found on a vehicle such as a vehicle braking system. Remarks p. 13.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. Applicant has not specifically claimed the braking system. Applicant only claims generic and generally “vehicle components”. The Specification provides, “ components of the vehicle comprise tires, brakes, brake pads, or electronic components” (Spec. [58]) and “vehicle components such as braking systems or entertainment systems may have recommendations formed” (Spec. [497]). As described in the specification all of the vehicle components are generally and generically describe. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a braking system would comprise components such as tires, brakes, brake pads, or electronic components – for any car, truck, van, bus, etc.
As already explained above sending and receiving signals/data are generic functions of computing components, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Further MPEP 2106.05(e) provides examples of meaningful limitations (significantly more) that transform the abstract idea in to patent eligible subject matter. For example see Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation (an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78, 209 USPQ at 4. The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products.
In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014). In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality. 2106.05(e). The instant claims are more akin to Alice Corp. in that Applicant links the ordering of components to the control of vehicle controls, but sending and receiving signals are well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
The customer order is not a generic or tangential communication. The customer order controls specific manufacturing machinery to produce a component, which enhances vehicle performance making this feature integral to the claim. Remarks p. 13-14.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position and notes that the courts have held that data regardless of its context is abstract. More specifically, “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity").” MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here the once sensor data is receive and analyzed it only makes sense to provide that data to the driver/user to let the person know the result, i.e. maintenance indication. This is akin to show the post-solution activity of Flook it neither provides a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
The claims recite the use of control signals to control particular machines that are integral to the structure and operation of the claims. The recited actions and structures are not insignificant past solution activity. Remarks p. 14.
Respectfully the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. The instant specification provides generally, “the order transmitted to a manufacturer causing the part to be manufactured by a manufacturer” (Spec. [30]) and “the order transmitted to a manufacturer causing the part to be manufactured by a manufacturer.” (Spec. [39]). The specification makes high level refence to the manufacturing process. It is not clear if the manufacturing is a manual, automated, or combination of the two.
It would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to assume the manufacturing was a manual process. Where the order is received by a human and the human interprets the order to manually start the manufacturing of the requested component. Where the specification further provides, “The output is processed by the control circuit 902 and may be used to control or instigate specific physical actions including ordering a product (e.g., a tire), installing the tire on the vehicle908, or modifying a component on a vehicle908. The control circuit902 can utilize the output to accomplish these results, for example, by forming control signals or other signals that send or communicate images or messages to the driver (e.g., being displayed to the driver via their device922), instigate a product order (e.g., that causes a product such as a tire to be manufactured), or communicate a message to a store employee that causes the employee to change the tire.” (Spec. [239])
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
As with example 45, the recited features do not merely link the judicial exception to a technical field, but instead add meaningful and significant limitations in that these features employ the information provided by the alleged judicial exception to control very specific devices in very specific ways. Remarks p. 15.
The instant claims are not analogous to example 45. Specifically, in that it is not clear how the manufacturing is controlled by Applicates claimed invention thus there is no parallel to example 45, claim 2. Further it is unclear which system sensors would be the equivalent of the unconventional ARCXY thermocouple of example 45, claim 3. Finally with respect to example 45, claim 4 the instant claims control are broadly stated it is not clear what specifically is being controlled how or why (temperature varies by 2 degrees from the target, then an adjustment is made to control the mold’s temperature). There is no meaningful limitation that employs the abstract idea to control a specific component.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Various components and manufacturing machinery are directly operated and controlled by control signals . . . claims are patent eligible for the same reasons as given in Example 46.
Respectfully the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. In the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples, Example 46, Claim 2 eligibility hinges on the fact that, limitation (d) does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it can employ the information provided by the judicial exception (the mental analysis of whether the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany) to operate the feed dispenser.” (Update 2019 at p. 37). In the instant claims that is no analogous meaningful limitation that employs or integrates the identified judicial exception.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-36 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. The independent claims include the limitation of “electronically forming a customer order for a fourth component to be placed in the vehicle, the vehicle component for enhancing vehicle performance, the order transmitted to a manufacturer causing the fourth component to be manufactured by a manufacturer, wherein the order automatically controls machinery at the manufacturer to create the fourth vehicle component”, see for example Claim 1.
Upon re-review of the instant specification the element of “wherein the order automatically controls machinery at the manufacturer to create the vehicle component” is not supported by the specification. The specification provides, “The use of the trained model server 360 (e.g., to control a particular machine to predict the mix and recipe or to provide unique results, namely a tire may be manufactured according to unique driver and vehicle requirements).” (Spec. [156]) The Specification goes on to teach “The control circuit902 can utilize the output to accomplish these results, for example, by forming control signals or other signals that send or communicate images or messages to the driver (e.g., being displayed to the driver via their device922), instigate a product order (e.g., that causes a product such as a tire to be manufactured), or communicate a message to a store employee that causes the employee to change the tire.”
From the specification it appears that the order may generically prompt/start the manufacture process, but it seems that it is the trained model server that actually controls the manufacturing machine.
The dependent claims do not clarify the issue raised above; therefore they are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-3 are to server (machine), claims 4-11 are to equipment (machine), and claims 12-18 are to method (process).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Were the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Id.
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A server for enhancing vehicle performance, the server comprising:
a transmitter and receiver device,
an electronic memory that stores data representing a neural network, the neural network having been trained with training data sets;
a control circuit, the control circuit being coupled to the transmitter and receiver device and the neural network in the electronic memory, the control circuit being configured to:
receive via the transmitter and receiver device one or more operational inputs from sensors of a vehicle, from a driver of the vehicle, or from an external source and apply the one or more operational inputs to the trained neural network, the applying yielding a prediction from the trained neural network concerning one or more of: (1) vehicle components of the vehicle, (2) upgrades to the vehicle components of the vehicle, (3) and maintenance events related to the vehicle components of the vehicle;
wherein the prediction includes one or more actions for the control circuit to take and the one or more actions of the control circuit comprise:
determining an upgrade of a first vehicle component of the vehicle and sending first signals to the driver describing the upgrade, wherein the upgraded first vehicle components of the vehicle is mechanically installed in the vehicle, the upgraded first component effective to enhance vehicle performance;
sending a control signal to a second vehicle component of the vehicle to control or change an operating parameter of the second vehicle component, receiving the electronic control signal at the second vehicle component, changing the operating parameter, the changing of the operating parameter being effective to alter a mechanical or electronic operation of the second vehicle component;
electronically forming a maintenance indication associated with a third vehicle component based upon the prediction and sending third electronic signals to the driver identifying the third component to be serviced and mechanically changing the third component; and
electronically forming a customer order for a fourth component to be placed in the vehicle, the vehicle component for enhancing vehicle performance, the order transmitted to a manufacturer causing the fourth component to be manufactured by a manufacturer, wherein the order automatically controls machinery at the manufacturer to create the fourth vehicle component.
The claimed invention is to making recommendation and ordering of parts based on information entered by a user based on known information. Both events are a form of commercial activities, i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity. Where the known information is fed into a trained neural network. Simply applying the data set (inputs) allows the trained to make decisions, perform a task, or as in the instant case make a prediction. These predictions are akin to the reasoning that one does in the human mind. As claimed the computing components are viewed as a tool – akin to pen and paper or a calculator. For these reasons the claims are found to be directed to the abstract categories of "methods of organizing human activity" and “mental processes”.
Further the elements of the claim can be carried out within the human mind within the aid of computer as tool. A human can using known information received from sensors of the vehicle and other driver’s make a determination based on reason and judgment when an upgrade or component repair is or will be necessary. The human user using the computer component as a tool could also create/from a message to recommend said upgrade or repair. Similar the user could create/form an order to manufacture the component.
It is further noted that server is only “configured to” meaning it does not actively perform any of the additional steps. Further the server it is noted the is “configured to . . . the control circuit to take and the one or more actions” however these steps are not interpreted as being positively recited or actively performed by the system. Further adding to the premise that the steps are mental.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The receiving, sending and forming elements are determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. 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.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination.
The hardware components are found to general or off-the-shelf component, see at least Specification [208-209]. Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claim 2, 6, and 14 add to the generic description of hardware rather than a particular machine therefore the claims do not provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 16 further defines the vehicle components which defines which are variables determined by the neural network; thus these claims add to the identified abstract idea.
Claim 5 adds to the generic description of hardware rather than a particular machine therefore the claims do not provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 11 adds to the generic description of neural network rather than a particular machine therefore the claims do not provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Claims 8, 9, and 10 adds to the generic description of user equipment rather than a particular machine therefore the claims do not provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Claim 13 further defines the sensors as well-understood, routine and conventional in the field thus they do not provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Claims 15 further defines the operating parameters which adds to the abstract idea.
Claims 17 and 18 further adds a step of pre-processing the data which adds to the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cella et al (US 2023/0058169 A1) teaches the visualization may include display of information related to the visualized digital twins, including graphical information, graphical information depicting vibration characteristics, graphical information depicting harmonic peaks, graphical information depicting peaks, vibration severity units data, vibration fault level state data, recommendations from cognitive intelligence system 258, predictions from cognitive intelligence system 258, probability of failure data, maintenance history data, time to failure data, cost of downtime data, probability of downtime data, cost of repair data, cost of machine replace data, probability of shutdown data, KPIs, and the like.
Tran (US 2022/0111960 A1) teaches a processor coupled to the sensors and a 5G network to control movement of the frame to move around a field for irrigation, the processor also collecting system operation parameters to predict part failure and request replacement parts ahead of the predicted failure. One embodiment collects operational parameters from a population of irrigation systems and predict failure based on population statistics.
Penilla et al (US 9,697,503 B1) teaches the VSW determines that the vehicle that is reporting problems does not require repair in 3108 the VSW continues to periodically poll the vehicle as it establishes a link. However, if the VSW determines that the vehicle reporting the problem requires repair in 3108 then the VSW aggregates both manufacturer suggested repair work service entities 3110 and service entity targeted advertisements 3112 that are most likely to be able to complete the repair based on paid participation by service entity in the advertisement and service entity service history of successful repairs completed for the type of repair the VSW has determined is required for the user's vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623