DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non Final Office Action in response to the request for continued examination filed 10/21/2025.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 10, 12-21, 24-26 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant submits on page 27 of the remarks that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant submits on pages 28-29 that the claim demonstrate integration into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that for a claim to be eligible and provide a technological improvement, it requires that arguably generic components ... operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality, unlike the present claim, were the additional elements only provide a computer generic function of sending/receiving and storing information, do not provide improvement to the computer technology and do not provide a meaningful link of the abstract idea to a practical application.
Applicant submits on pages 29-31 of the remarks that the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Examiner notes that when determining whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B the analysis takes into consideration whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims merely recite the use of a generic computer to perform generic computer functions of storing and transmitting data. These generic computer functions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 112 (f): a plurality of modules including: a data detection module, a data obtaining module, a data computation module, a data prediction module, a health condition determination module, a notification generation module, a data output module. a data incentive module and “scanning a unique encrypted code associated with each of the at least one of: the one or more authenticated components and the one or more authenticated services by using one or more automated detection means”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 12-14, 16-21, 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a machine, claim 13 is directed to a process, and claim 25 is directed to an article of manufacture. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: Claim 13, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
generating a weight profile associated with the obtained one or more events and the obtained timing of the one or more events based on a set of weight generation rules, the obtained usage data, the obtained one or more utility parameters, one or more score parameters and one or more scheduled event timings, wherein the one or more score parameters comprise at least one of: telemetry of the utility equipment, ambient conditions, one of: operator’s handling skill and performance and timely maintenance of the utility equipment from an authorized certified personnel;
generating an asset score associated with the utility equipment based on the obtained usage data, the ambient conditions, the obtained one or more utility parameters, the generated weight profile and the one or more score parameters;
predicting a rate of variation of the asset score associated with the timings of the one or more events of the utility equipment based on a plurality of historical asset scores, one or more new events, the generated weight profile, and the generated asset score by using a variation prediction-based model, wherein the variation prediction-based AI model is a forecasting model that predicts the future values based on past performance, wherein the variation prediction- based AI model comprises a statistical model that includes Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA), and complex neural network algorithms that comprise Convolutional Neural Network-Quantile Regression (CNN-QR), DeepAR+, Prophet, Non- Parametric Time Series (NPTS), Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA), and Exponential Smoothing (ETS), wherein the rate of variation comprises one of: an incremental rate and a decremental rate of the asset score; wherein steps of predicting the rate of variation of the asset score associated with the timings of the one or more events of the utility equipment based on the plurality of historical asset scores, one or more new events, the generated weight profile, and the generated asset score by using the variation prediction-based AI model, comprise: normalizing the generated asset score for the model of the utility equipment in predefined periodic intervals based on the obtained usage data, the ambient conditions, the obtained one or more utility parameters and the one or more score parameters by using one or more normalization techniques, wherein the one or more normalization techniques comprise at least one of: SoftMax technique, a min-max normalization technique, Euclidean, a Z -score technique and a Box-Cox transformation technique; generating a delta score based on the normalized asset score, the one or more new events, the generated weight profile, a Boolean vector corresponding to occurrence of the one or more new events, a weight vector corresponding to the one or more new events and a weight of usage in the generated asset score; generating a new cumulative asset score based on the normalized asset score and the generated delta score;
normalizing the generated new cumulative asset score by using the one or more normalization techniques; and predicting the rate of variation of the asset score associated with the timings of the one or more events of the utility equipment based on the plurality of historical asset scores, the normalized new cumulative asset score and the one or more events by using the variation prediction-based AI model;
determining a health condition of the utility equipment based on the generated weight profile, the generated asset score, and the predicted rate of variation by using a health condition-based model, wherein the health condition of the utility equipment comprises one of: good performance, average performance, low performance, overheated, low risk, and high risk;
updating one or more dynamic incentives associated with the at least one of: the one or more authenticated components and the one or more authenticated services dynamically based on the predicted rate of variation of the asset score and a set of dynamic incentive rules, wherein the one or more dynamic incentives comprise at least one of: a warranty period and one or more terms and conditions in a warranty document, a rebate, a discount, a coupon, a virtual cash, a redeem point, a price training, and a resale value;
generating one or more notifications corresponding to the updated one or more dynamic incentives; and
outputting the generated one or more notifications, the predicted rate of variation and the determined health condition to one or more users.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite commercial interactions, i.e., providing incentives, e.g., a rebate, discount, coupon. The BRI of these limitations includes using data to generate a weight profile; using data and the generated weight profile to generate an asset score; using data and the generated asset score to predict a rate of variation of the asset score using a variation prediction-based model; using the predicted rate of variation, generated weight profile, and generated asset score to determine a health condition of the utility equipment by using a health condition-based model; updating dynamic incentives, e.g., a rebate, discount, coupon; generating notifications corresponding to the dynamic incentives; and outputting the dynamic incentives, predicted rate of variation, and determined health condition to one or more users. The purpose of the claimed invention is to provide incentives to users to purchase authenticated parts and service, see [0003]. Claims 1 and 25 recite similar limitations as claim 13. Accordingly, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claims 1, 13, and 25 recite an abstract idea (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(a).
In regards to the amended limitations the Examiner notes that they are directed to a “Mental Process”. These limitations include:
match the scanned unique encrypted code with a repository of multiple unique encrypted codes to verify the uniqueness of the scanned code, wherein the unique encrypted code is restricted to a single valid use during the lifetime of the corresponding components and one or more services, and wherein anon- genuine status is determined when the unique encrypted code is at least one of: absent from the repository, and corresponding to a previously used code; and in the absence of a valid unique encrypted code, authenticate the one or more authenticated components and the one or more authenticated services by using one or more artificial intelligence techniques, wherein the one or more artificial intelligence techniques comprise at least one of: multi-variate anomaly detection, missing values imputation, and pattern matching of parameters including model, serial number, age, time, and operating condition; an authenticity determination module configured to: receive data representative of the one or more authenticated components and a status of the one or more authenticated components in the form of a transaction from one or more contacts via a decentralized ledger, wherein the one or more contacts correspond to network nodes of a blockchain; verify the transaction upon receiving approval from the network nodes through a consensus mechanism, wherein the verified transaction represents that the one or more authenticated components are authentic; and add the verified transaction to the blockchain upon verification; transmit the usage data to a cloud-based storage unit as a payload at predefined periodic time intervals, the payload comprising at least one of: the usage data, the unique encrypted code corresponding to the at least one of the one or more components and the one or more services, and a timestamp, wherein the timestamp indicates an installation time and an expiry time of the corresponding one or more components and the one or more services based on a predefined lifetime; wherein in generating the weight profile, the data computation module is configured to: determine a weight factor associated with each of the obtained one or more events based on the obtained timing of the one or more events, the set of weight generation rules, the obtained usage data, the obtained one or more utility parameters, the one or more score parameters, the one or more scheduled event timings and at least one of: historical data and anecdotal experience corresponding to the one or more events…
Prong 2, Step 2A: The recitation of the additional element of one or more hardware processors in claim 13 is acknowledged. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a computing system comprising one or more hardware processors and a memory coupled to the one or more hardware processors, wherein the memory comprises a plurality of modules in the form of programmable instructions executable by the one or more hardware processors. Claim 25 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored therein that are executable by a hardware processor. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see at least [0023] and [0032]). Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1, 13, and 25 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 13, and 25 recite the additional elements of the variation prediction-based model and the health condition-based model being AI models. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, they provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The AI models are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the AI models function. The recitation of AI models merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (artificial intelligence) and thus fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 1, 13, and 25 recite the additional element of the data being output on a user interface screen of one or more electronic devices via one or more communication channels, wherein the one or more communication channels comprise a Short Message Service (SMS), a multimedia message, a push notification, and an email. Outputting data via a user interface screen of a device via such communication channels is merely invoking the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity (e.g., to receive or transmit data). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 13, and 25 recite the additional elements of detecting at least one of: one or more authenticated components and one or more authenticated services of a utility equipment for uniqueness and compliance by scanning a unique encrypted code associated with each of the at least one of: the one or more authenticated components and the one or more authenticated services by using one or more automated detection means; obtaining usage data associated with the detected at least one of: the one or more authenticated components and the one or more authenticated services via one or more communication platforms upon detecting the at least one of: the one or more authenticated components and the one or more authenticated services, wherein the one or more communication platforms use one or more sensors to receive the usage data via one or more communication technologies; obtaining one or more utility parameters associated with the utility equipment from a storage unit and an external API based on the obtained usage data, wherein the one or more utility parameters comprise a model of the utility equipment, name of the utility equipment, age of the utility equipment, location of the utility equipment, temperature, humidity, speed, location, run hours, and name of user of the utility equipment; and obtaining one or more events and a timing of the one or more events associated with the utility equipment from the storage unit based on the obtained usage data and the obtained one or more utility parameters, wherein the one or more events comprise at least one of: one or more periodic scheduled maintenance events, one or more repair events, one or more accident events, one or more audit events, one or more financial events and one or more routing maintenance events. These limitations merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (e.g., mere data gathering). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 13, and 25 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claims 1, 13, and 25 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 13, and 25 are “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Additionally, when considering whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, it is considered whether the extra-solution limitation is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The steps of obtaining data are well-known. The step of detecting components and/or services by scanning a unique encrypted code using one or more automated detection means is well-known. Accordingly, as indicated above, these steps merely add insignificant extra-solution activities to the abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claims 1, 13, and 25 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 13, and 25 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claims 1, 13, and 25 are ineligible.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625