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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been examined and rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-20, see p. 9 last paragraph – p. 10 ¶ 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Those steps as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to abstract ideas as explained in the 101 claim rejections section below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: there are apparent typographical errors in limitation “analyzing historical ordering of difference components for different apparatuses ....” It should be “analyzing historical ordering of different components for different apparatuses ....” 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to abstract ideas.
Claim 1 is a system claim and recites:
A system for identifying reusable hardware components, the system comprising:
a memory; and
a processor in communication with the memory, the processor being configured to perform operations comprising:
identifying that an apparatus is to be disposed, wherein the apparatus is composed of one or more hardware components; (mental process by observation)
analyzing the apparatus; (mental process)
generating a respective digital twin for each of the one or more hardware components; (mental process that can be done by pen and paper)
analyzing the respective digital twin for each of the one or more hardware components; (mental process)
analyzing historical ordering of difference components for different apparatuses, and based on the analyzing, identify if any component of a disposed machine can be stored for future usage as a spare part; and (mental process)
determining a condition of each of the one or more hardware components based on the respective digital twin for each of the one or more hardware components. (mental process)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations in the claims are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim recites additional elements including a memory and a processor, which are components of a generic computer, to perform generic functions. They do not amount significantly more to abstract ideas.
Claim 2 is a system claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The system of claim 1, wherein determining the condition of each of the one or more hardware components includes:
identifying that a condition of a first hardware component is unusable; and (mental process)
disposing the first hardware component. (mental process since disposing the hardware component is considered as disregarding it)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations in the claims are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements.
Claim 3 is a system claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The system of claim 1, wherein determining the condition of each of the one or more hardware components includes:
identifying that a condition of a first hardware component is reusable; and (mental process)
storing the first hardware component, wherein the first hardware component is stored with other reusable hardware components. (insignificant extra-solution activity, storing data MPEP 2106.05(d))
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations in the claims are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements.
Claim 4 is a system claim depending on claim 3 and recites:
The system of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
analyzing a second apparatus, wherein the second apparatus is composed of one or more other hardware components; (mental process)
generating other respective digital twins for each of the one or more other hardware components; and (mental process that can be done by pen and paper)
determining if any of the one or more other hardware components should be replaced. (mental process)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations in the claims are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements.
Claim 5 is a system claim depending on claim 4 and recites:
The system of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
identifying that a first other hardware component should be replaced; (mental process)
comparing the first hardware component with the first other hardware component; (mental process)
identifying that the first hardware component and the first other hardware component are the same; and (mental process)
replacing the first other hardware component with the first hardware component. (insignificant extra-solution activity, applying it MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations in the claims are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim has additional elements of replacing the first other hardware component with the first hardware component which falls under insignificant extra-solution activity, applying it MPEP 2106.05(f).
.
Claim 6 is a system claim depending on claim 3 and recites:
The system of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
analyzing one or more other apparatuses; (mental process)
identifying a common function between the apparatus and the one or more other apparatuses; and (mental process)
analyzing the stored hardware components. (mental process)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations in the claims are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements.
Claim 7 is a system claim depending on claim 6 and recites:
The system of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
determining, from the analyzing of the stored hardware components, that a new apparatus can be assembled; and (mental process)
assembling the new apparatus from the stored hardware components. (insignificant extra-solution activity, applying it MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations in the claims are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements.
Claim 8 is a method claim and recites limitations analogous to those in claim 1. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 9-14 are method claims depending on claim 8 and recite limitations analogous to those in claims 2-7. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 is a product claim and recites limitations analogous to those in claim 1. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 16-20 are product claims depending on claim 15 and recite limitations analogous to those in claims 2-6. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Naota et al. (WO 2012128249) teaches determining if a mechanical component can be reused by examining stored information of the mechanical component to evaluate if it can be reused. The stored information includes history determination standard for the usage information.
Nam et al. (US 2019/0007994) teaches identifying resources previously reserved for forward compatibility available for reuse
As per claim 1, Kerin teaches a system for identifying reusable hardware components, the system comprising:
a memory (p. 62 last paragraph; Kerin teaches using software and computers, including memory, to perform functions taught in the thesis); and
a processor in communication with the memory, the processor being configured to perform operations comprising (p. 62 last paragraph; Kerin teaches using software and computers, including a processor, to perform functions taught in the thesis):
identifying that an apparatus is to be disposed, wherein the apparatus is composed of one or more hardware components (p. 68 ¶ 3-5, p. 69 ¶ 2, p. 114 last paragraph; Kerin teaches using data carrying devices (DCD) to monitor hardware components such as turbines throughout their lives to disposal);
analyzing the apparatus (p. 69 ¶ 2, p. 122 last paragraph; Kerin teaches using digital twin, DT, to analyze assets such as turbines);
generating a respective digital twin for each of the one or more hardware components (p. 122 last paragraph; Kerin teaches using digital twin for each of the one or more hardware components);
analyzing the respective digital twin for each of the one or more hardware components (p. 122 last paragraph – p. 123 ¶ 1; Kerin teaches using digital twin, DT, to analyze components);
identify if any component of a disposed machine can be stored for future usage as a spare part (p. 2 last paragraph; Kerin teaches recognizing if components from products are recovered for remanufacturing, including going directly into reuse applications; p. 191 ¶ 1-2, p. 194 ¶ 2; Kerin teaches disassembled components for reuse are stored in storage); and
determining a condition of each of the one or more hardware components based on the respective digital twin for each of the one or more hardware components (p. 2 last paragraph, p. 114 last paragraph; Kerin teaches using digital twins to recognize components could be repaired, refurbished, recycling, or disposal; this teaching means condition of components is determined).
However, none of cited prior arts including Kerin, Naota et al., and Nam et al. either alone or in combination teaches:
analyzing historical ordering of difference components for different apparatuses, and based on the analyzing, identify if any component of a disposed machine can be stored for future usage as a spare part;
as a whole in combination with other limitations.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite limitations analogous to those in claim 1 including the limitation determined to be allowable. Claims 8 and 14 are also allowable for the same reasons.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend on claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. They are, hence, allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
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 Cuong Van Luu whose telephone number is 571-272-8572. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Rehana Perveen, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3676, 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.
/CUONG V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights