DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant submission filed December 14, 2022. Applicant suspended prosecution of the instant application until December 14, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 17 are the independent claims.
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 .
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 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 8 and 17, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of maintenance scheduling. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, maintenance scheduling (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to adjusting a maintenance schedule for a set of assets, wherein maintenance scheduling is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. See 2106.04(a). Further all of the steps of “constructing”, “scoring”, and “adjusting” recite functions of the maintenance scheduling are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The steps of constructing a graph and scoring a divergence are also directed to an abstract idea because it is a mathematical concept (i.e. graph theory, mathematical structures used to model pairwise relations between objects). The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 8 and 17 appears to be adjust a current maintenance schedule for a set of assets in response to a divergence score between a state graph and a previous state graph.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the assets and additional limitations of generic computer elements: computer readable storage medium storing program instructions, processor, computer readable storage medium. See 2106.04(a).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2106.04(a)), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: computer readable storage medium storing program instructions, processor, computer readable storage medium. These generic computing components are merely used to receive/access, process or display data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 1). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's maintenance scheduling in the general field of maintenance planning/management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a) regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited computer readable storage medium storing program instructions, processor, computer readable storage medium," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the MPEP 2106.04(a), that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Regarding the graph and previous graph (mathematical structures used to model pairwise relations between objects) are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a graph and previous graph network on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The graph and previous graph are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the graph and previous graph functions. The graph and previous graph are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic graph and previous graph to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of generate a trained predictive trait model, run the trained predictive trait model and generating explanations all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a computer readable storage medium storing program instructions, processor, computer readable storage medium nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps detecting a selection of a predictive trait, retrieve user data is directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The step of displaying the generated explanations is directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Claims 1-7 fail to positively recite, in the body of the claims, who or what entity performs the various method steps (e.g. readily performed in human mind, by pen and paper). Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic computer readable storage medium storing program instructions, processor, computer readable storage medium are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Regarding the graph and previous graph are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a graph and previous graph network on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The graph and previous graph is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the graph and previous graph functions. The graph and previous graph is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic graph and previous graph to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. The recitation of a graph and previous graph in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the trained neural network is merely used at a tool to perform an otherwise mental process.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-16 and 18-20, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of maintenance scheduling and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 8 and 17.
Claims 2, 11 and 18 further limit the abstract idea by determining the asset health score by analyzing condition data (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3, 12 and 19 further limit the abstract idea by scoring the divergence by calculating a divergence between inverse covariance matrices (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4, 13 and 20 further limit the abstract idea by wherein the divergence comprises a Kullback-Liebler divergence (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by constructing a divergence graph and identifying a port of assets requiring a schedule adjustment (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6 and 15 further limit the abstract idea by solving a target optimization problem comprising maximizing risk improvement of the set of assets (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 7 and 16 further limit the abstract idea by causing performance of the adjusted schedule (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 9 further limits the abstract idea by transferring the stored instructions over a network from a remote data processing system (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 10 further limits the abstract idea by metering the use of the program instructions and generating an invoice (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-20, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a computer readable storage medium storing program instructions, processor, computer readable storage medium at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 1). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refer to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a computer readable storage medium storing program instructions, processor, computer readable storage mediums merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figures 13, 14). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, set forth in this Office action.
Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose a computer implemented method, a computer program product or a system comprising: constructing a graph representing a current state of a set of assets, a weighted node in the graph representing an asset in the set of assets, a weighted edge in the graph representing a connection between two assets in the set of assets, a weight of the weighted node determined using an asset health score of the asset, a weight of the weighted edge determined according to an importance of the connection; scoring a divergence between the graph and a previous graph representing a previous state of the set of assets, the scoring resulting in a divergence score; and adjusting, responsive to the divergence score being above a threshold score, a current maintenance schedule of the set of assets, the adjusting resulting in an adjusted maintenance schedule as claimed in independent claims 1, 8 and 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schimert, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170193372 discloses a system and method for fleet asset health monitoring and maintenance planning comprising a prognostic distance matrix (distance representing deviation from normal performance) and reinforcement learning.
Kodimer, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220245599 discloses a predictive maintenance system and method comprising a weighted graph representing the current state of assets/devices and predicting device failures utilizing machine learning
Grichnik et al., U.S. Patent No. 7483774 discloses a maintenance scheduling system and method utilizing Mahalanobis distance.
Sridhar et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20150356521 discloses a maintenance scheduling system and method utilizing a covariance matrix which defines interrelationships between variables and which are overlaid on the Euclidean distance.
Sugimura et al., U.S. Patent No. 12014335 discloses an asset maintenance scheduling system and method comprising a learned covariance matrix for calculating the Mahalanobis distance (inverse covariance matrix), from the normal state (dispersion, divergence).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Eric Stamber can be reached at (571) 272-6724. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625