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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to the specification objection and the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered and are accepted. The specification/abstract objection and the 35 USC 101 rejection of 11/05/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
There are two separate claim 43’s (see first claim 43 at page 10 of the claims and another claim 43 at page 11 of the claims).
The second claim 43 (at page 11) and claim 45 appear to depend from canceled claims 30 and 17 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 31 - 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 31, the instant claim recites the limitation “the next” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting unclear scope of the claim.
Regarding Claim 31, the instant claim recites the limitations “this device” in line 9. It is vague/unclear if “this device” is the same “respective device” or if it is referring to another device from the group of devices.
Regarding Claim 32, the instant claim recites the limitation “the upper limit of the lower ratio range” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting unclear scope of the claim. Examiner notes that the instant claim states “an upper limit of the lower ratio range” as being “smaller than 1” as recited at lines 2 – 3. However, the magnitude or the actual limit is not recited thus resulting in unclear scope of the claim.
Regarding Claim 32, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the intermediate range requires recitations “larger than 1, or smaller or equal to 2”. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding Claim 33, the instant claim recites the limitation “the lower ratio range” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting unclear scope of the claim. Note that “the lower ratio range” is defined in claim 32. Therefore, for examining purposes, examiner has interpreted dependency of claim 33 to be dependent on claim 32.
Regarding Claim 35, the instant claim recites the limitation “the intermediate ratio range” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting unclear scope of the claim. Note that “the intermediate ratio range” is defined in claim 32. Therefore, for examining purposes, examiner has interpreted dependency of claim 35 to be dependent on claim 32.
Regarding Claim 37, the instant claim recites “high degree of compliancy” in line 3 and “low degree of compliancy” in line 4. How is one determining such “high” and “low” degree of compliancy? Is the compliancy of one device compared to compliancy of another device for determining “high” or “low” or is there a separate way of determining how one devices compliancy is “high” or “low” somehow? Therefore, the terms “high”, “low” in the instant claim 37 are considered as relative terms which renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 41, the instant claim recites the limitation “the first asset values, the second asset values, the third asset values, the fourth asset values, the combined asset values, the scheduled asset values, the implemented asset values” in lines 2 – 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting unclear scope of the claim. Note that all of the asset values are recited in claim 39 however claim 41 appears to depend from claim 33 and not claim 39.
Regarding Claim 41, the instant claim recites the limitation “the group-indicators” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting unclear scope of the claim.
Regarding Claim 42, the instant claim recites the limitations “said increased risks, increased costs, unused cost reduction potentials and/or unused risk reduction potentials” in lines 1 – 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting unclear scope of the claim.
Regarding Claim 43 (i.e., the second 43 at page 11), the instant claim appears to depend from canceled claim 30. The claim further states “once a root cause has been identified” in line 2. Therefore, for examining purposes, claim 43 has been interpreted to depend from claim 42 since “root cause” is being determined in claim 42.
Regarding Claim 45, the instant claim appears to depend from canceled claim 17. Furthermore, the instant claim recites the limitation “the upper limit of the lower ratio range” in last two lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting unclear scope of the claim. Examiner notes that the instant claim states “an upper limit of the lower ratio range” as being “smaller or equal to 0.75” as recited at lines 2 – 3. However, the magnitude or the actual limit is not recited thus resulting in unclear scope of the claim.
Due to claim dependency all dependent claims are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form accompanying this office action which includes the following relevant art:
Vaissiere, Dimitri (EP 2597436 A1) teaches a method of determining a calibration time interval for a measurement device. The method comprising the steps of: operating and regularly calibrating a statistically relevant number of devices of the given type, during each calibration of each of the devices determining whether the device under calibration is compliant or non-compliant to a given specification, adjusting non-compliant devices in order to make them compliant again, and replacing them in case they are non-compliant after their adjustment, for each of these devices recording all operation time intervals during which the respective device was operated unaltered prior to any of its adjustments or its replacement, based on the recorded operation time intervals determining a probability density function for an operation time interval after which devices of this type will require adjustment or replacement, determining a criticality of the specific device representing a risk involved in operating the device in the specific application, and determining the calibration time interval as a time interval for which according to the probability density function a probability for a device of this type to require adjustment or replacement during this time interval corresponds to a predetermined probability value assigned to the criticality of the specific device
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 MARRIT EYASSU whose telephone number is (571)270-1403. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Laura E. Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/MARRIT EYASSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights