DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 1/2/26 wherein:
Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Fig. 4 is blurry and hard to read. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “allow the user to modify the field for the information that already exist related to the ECR that requested the replacement; and allow the user to disable modification for the field for the information that already exist related to the ECR that requested the replacement” is grammatically incorrect; it should read “allow the user to modify the field for the information that already exists related to the ECR that requested the replacement; and allow the user to disable modification for the field for the information that already exists related to the ECR that requested the replacement”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 and 15 contain similar language and are objected to on a similar basis.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 8 and 15 recite a system and a computer readable medium, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered certain methods of organizing human activity
receiving, using at least one processor, an authorization message authorizing an electronic change request (ECR) configured to request replacement of a first maintenance profile of a device that is an operative maintenance profile of the device with a second maintenance profile;
activating, using the at least one processor, the second maintenance profile to replace the first maintenance profile as the operative maintenance profile of the device;
generating, using the at least one processor, an audit trail of the activation of the second maintenance profile as the operative maintenance profile of the device, the audit trail including a field for information related to the ECR that requested the replacement; and
storing, using the at least one processor, the audit trail in a storage system for use in auditing the operative maintenance profile of the device; and
displaying, using the at least one processor, the audit trail in a user interface configured to:
allow a user to enter the field for the information related to the ECR that requested the replacement;
allow the user to modify the field for the information that already exist related to the ECR that requested the replacement; and
allow the user to disable modification for the field for the information that already exist related to the ECR that requested the replacement
These limitations constitute management of device maintenance, and more specifically, updating device maintenance profiles (Specification ¶2), which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of
claim 1: at least one processor, a user interface
claim 8: at least one computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions; at least one processor configured to execute the computer executable instructions to cause the system to perform operations, a user interface; and
claim 15: a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising at least one program for execution by at least one processor of a system, the at least one program including instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations, a user interface.
The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Additionally, the receiving and storing limitations may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the steps of the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the receiving and storing limitation) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec, and identifying storing information in memory as WURC, as recognized by Versata). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18-21 merely recite further refinements of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8, and 15; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claim 3, 10, and 17 further recites the additional element of a user interface, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the step of displaying may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity, similar to those already considered above. As above, the courts have recognized the computer functions claimed (the displaying limitation) as WURC (see 2106.05(d)). Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
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 1-21 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.
Claim 1 states, “allow a user to enter the field for the information related to the ECR that requested the replacement; allow the user to modify the field for the information that already exist related to the ECR that requested the replacement: and allow the user to disable modification for the field for the information that already exist related to the ECR that requested the replacement,” which is confusing because it seems to indicate that the user is entering, modifying, and disabling modification of the field, while it would be more common to enter, modify, and disable modification of the information in the field. When reviewing the Specification, this interpretation is supported in ¶29. As such, Examiner interprets the claims accordingly and requires clarifying amendments. Claims 8 and 15 include similar language to claim 1 and are rejected on a similar basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the information that already exist related to the ECR." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 8 and 15 include similar language to claim 1 and are rejected on a similar basis.
Notice
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeffries et al. (US 20220103549), in view of Somala et al. (US 20200358648), in view of Shaw et al. (US 20180186599), and further in view of Haris et al. (US 20010013004).
Referring to claim 1:
Jeffries discloses a method comprising: receiving, using at least one processor, an authorization message authorizing an electronic change request (ECR) configured to request replacement of a first maintenance profile of a device that is an operative maintenance profile of the device with a second maintenance profile {Jeffries [0054]-[0056]; when networked device 102(A1) receives a request to change a setting, such as a change to a user credential, an application update, or a maintenance procedure, networked device 102(A1) can determine similar devices of the networked devices 102 for which a similar change should be made or should be suggested [0054] and The suggestion can be accepted via a user input device (e.g., touch screen or keypad) of the device that received the suggestion. A user of the networked device 102 (A1) or the central management point can accept or decline a suggestion displayed at its user output device for changing the setting [0056]};
activating, using the at least one processor, the second maintenance profile to replace the first maintenance profile as the operative maintenance profile of the device {Jeffries [0037][0054]; The request can be submitted by a user or the external processing device to change a specified setting of the device settings 106 to a new value Y. In one or more embodiments, the request can specify an original value of the specified setting being changed. Upon receiving a request, a networked device 102 changes its device settings 106 as specified by the request [0037]}.
Jeffries discloses a system for managing setting changes in devices (abstract). Jeffries does not disclose generating, using the at least one processor, an audit trail of the activation of the second maintenance profile as the operative maintenance profile of the device, the audit trail including a field for information related to the ECR that requested the replacement; and storing, using the at least one processor, the audit trail in a storage system for use in auditing the operative maintenance profile of the device.
However, Somala discloses a similar system for monitoring devices during maintenance (abstract). Somala discloses generating, using the at least one processor, an audit trail of the activation of the second maintenance profile as the operative maintenance profile of the device, the audit trail including a field for information related to the ECR that requested the replacement {Somala [0016]-[0018][0065][0080][0081]; where the user may customize the maintenance tasks, as in [0016]-[0018], thereby requesting a replacement of the original maintenance task with a second maintenance profile and Data relating to continuous monitoring of network devices while executing maintenance operations (e.g., device information, telemetry data, default or custom methods of procedure, scheduling information, failure criteria, software and/or firmware for network devices, etc.) may be stored within any conventional or other data structures (e.g., files, arrays, lists, stacks, queues, records, etc.) [0080] and Data relating to continuous monitoring of network devices while executing maintenance operations may include any desired format and arrangement, and may include any quantity of any types of fields of any size to store any desired data [0081]}; and
storing, using the at least one processor, the audit trail in a storage system for use in auditing the operative maintenance profile of the device {Somala [0080]; Data relating to continuous monitoring of network devices while executing maintenance operations (e.g., device information, telemetry data, default or custom methods of procedure, scheduling information, failure criteria, software and/or firmware for network devices, etc.) may be stored within any conventional or other data structures (e.g., files, arrays, lists, stacks, queues, records, etc.) and may be stored in any desired storage unit (e.g., database, data or other repositories, queue, etc.) [0080]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Jeffries to incorporate generating and storing an audit trail as taught by Somala because this would provide a manner for monitoring devices (Somala [0080]), thus aiding the user by providing a record of maintenance activities.
Jeffries, as modified by Somala, discloses a system for managing setting changes in devices (abstract). Jeffries, as modified by Somala, does not disclose displaying, using the at least one processor, the audit trail in a user interface configured to: allow a user to enter the field for the information related to the ECR that requested the replacement; allow the user to modify the field for the information that already exist related to the ECR that requested the replacement.
However, Shaw discloses a similar system for recording and storing maintenance information (abstract). Shaw discloses displaying, using the at least one processor, the audit trail in a user interface configured to: allow a user to enter the field for the information related to the ECR that requested the replacement; allow the user to modify the field for the information that already exist related to the ECR that requested the replacement {Shaw [0022][0041]; a technician may enter and/or alter information such as inspection data, repair data, number of hours worked on a specific conveyance apparatus. . . A building owner or maintenance company personnel may have access to and right to alter all the information in the database 108 regarding the conveyance apparatuses he or she manages [0041]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Jeffries and Somala to incorporate allowing a user to enter and modify information as taught by Shaw because this would provide a manner for documenting work performed and enforcing scheduled maintenance requirements (Shaw [0020]), thus aiding the user by reducing the liability for the parties responsible for the maintenance.
Jeffries, as modified by Somala and Shaw, discloses a system for managing setting changes in devices (abstract). Jeffries, as modified by Somala and Shaw, does not disclose allow the user to disable modification for the field for the information that already exist related to the ECR that requested the replacement.
However, Haris discloses a similar system for managing brand resources (abstract). Haris discloses allow the user to disable modification for the field for the information that already exist related to the ECR that requested the replacement {Haris [0179][0186]; The BF module 276 enables users to: collaboratively develop budgets, based on individual contracts, and contract terms; add notes to a selected budget category (i.e., column) and view a summary of all notes previously entered; edit selected columns; "lock" budgets by contract, fiscal year, and budget category, preventing numbers in a selected column from being edited, or "unlock" the column to allow editing [0179] where locking down a column also locks down the fields in the column}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Jeffries, Somala, and Shaw to incorporate allowing a user to disable modification of information as taught by Haris because this would provide a manner for preventing numbers in a selected column from being edited (Haris [0186]), thus aiding the user by ensuring the data is not changed.
Referring to claim 3:
Jeffries, as modified by Somala, Shaw, and Haris, discloses wherein the audit trail in the user interface is further configured to allow a user to augment the information identifying the ECR that requested the replacement {Somala [0080]-[0082]; The interface may include any number of any types of input or actuation mechanisms (e.g., REST APIs, buttons, icons, fields, boxes, links, etc.) disposed at any locations to enter/display information and initiate desired actions via any suitable input devices (e.g., mouse, keyboard, etc.) [0082]}.
Referring to claim 4:
Jeffries, as modified by Somala, Shaw, and Haris, discloses wherein the replacement of the first maintenance profile by the second maintenance profile as the operative maintenance profile of the device occurs automatically irrespective of a format in which first maintenance profile data of the first maintenance profile is arranged within the first maintenance profile {Jeffries [0052] [0054][0061] Fig. 3; automatically adjusting a device setting of a plurality devices [0061] and Fig. 3 at 310 states, Change setting on the selected similar devices from X to Y or based on an equation and where describing the initial setting as X indicates that the change will occur irrespective of format of the first maintenance profile}.
Referring to claim 5:
Jeffries, as modified by Somala, Shaw, and Haris, discloses wherein the operative maintenance profile of the device configures a maintenance operation to be performed on the device {Jeffries [0054]; when networked device 102(A1) receives a request to change a setting, such as a change to a user credential, an application update, or a maintenance procedure [0054]}.
Referring to claim 6:
Jeffries, as modified by Somala, Shaw, and Haris, discloses wherein the replacement of the first maintenance profile by the second maintenance profile as the operative maintenance profile of the device changes a frequency and/or a procedure of the maintenance operation to be performed on the device {Jeffries [0054]; when networked device 102(A1) receives a request to change a setting, such as a change to a user credential, an application update, or a maintenance procedure [0054]}.
Referring to claim 7:
Jeffries, as modified by Somala, Shaw, and Haris, discloses wherein the information indicates a difference between the first maintenance profile and the second maintenance profile {Somala [0080]-[0082]; Data relating to continuous monitoring of network devices while executing maintenance operations (e.g., device information, telemetry data, default or custom methods of procedure, scheduling information, failure criteria, software and/or firmware for network devices, etc.) may be stored [0080] where data relating to the custom methods of procedure indicates a difference between the default (first) maintenance profile and the second (custom) maintenance profile}.
Referring to claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following additions:
Jeffries discloses a system comprising: at least one computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the computer executable instructions to cause the system to perform operations {Jeffries [0020][0032][0075]-[0077]; the embodiments of this disclosure as discussed below are implemented using a software algorithm, program, or code that can reside on a computer useable medium for enabling execution on a machine having a computer processor [0032] and The various embodiments disclosed herein may be implemented as a system, method or computer program product [0075]}.
Referring to claims 10-14:
Claims 10-14 are rejected on a similar basis to claims 3-7.
Referring to claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following additions:
Jeffries discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising at least one program for execution by at least one processor of a system, the at least one program including instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations {Jeffries [0020][0032][0075]-[0077]; the embodiments of this disclosure as discussed below are implemented using a software algorithm, program, or code that can reside on a computer useable medium for enabling execution on a machine having a computer processor [0032] and aspects may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer-readable medium(s) having computer-readable program code embodied thereon [0075]}.
Referring to claims 17-21:
Claims 17-21 are rejected on a similar basis to claims 3-7.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeffries et al. (US 20220103549), in view of Somala et al. (US 20200358648), in view of Shaw et al. (US 20180186599), in view of Haris et al. (US 20010013004), and further in view of Castel et al. (US 20140101058).
Referring to claim 2:
Jeffries, as modified by Somala, Shaw, and Haris, discloses a system for managing setting changes in devices (abstract). Jeffries, as modified by Somala, Shaw, and Haris, does not explicitly disclose extracting, using the at least one processor, the information from the ECR, and populating the field with the extracted information.
However, Castel discloses a similar system for providing maintenance (abstract). Castel discloses extracting, using the at least one processor, the information from the ECR, and populating the field with the extracted information {Castel [0168]; The data import utility is configured to automatically extract relevant information or files, and link them to appropriate fields of the applicable data record [0168]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Jeffries, Somala, Shaw, and Haris, to incorporate extracting data and populating the field with the data as taught by Castel because this would provide a manner for linking data to appropriate fields of the applicable record (Castel [0168]), thus aiding the user by providing a record of maintenance activities.
Referring to claim 9:
Claim 9 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 2.
Referring to claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the amended claims cannot be considered to be directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Remarks 9. Examiner notes that, due to the amendment, the claims are now rejected as directed to a certain method of organizing user activity, not a mental process.
Applicant then argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that “improves the functioning of a computer, such as the process of replacing the deactivated device maintenance profile by the updated device maintenance profile as the operative device maintenance profile.” Remarks 10. Replacing a maintenance profile does not improve technology. At most, this provides an improvement to the abstract idea of performing maintenance. There is no evidence that the computer is performing a specific technological process that computers could not previously perform, as in McRO. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the amended limitations. Examiner has included new prior art in response (see above).
Drawing Objections
The replacement drawing for Fig. 4 appears to be the exact same drawing as was originally submitted for Fig. 4. The writing is still blurry and hard to read. The objection stands.
Conclusion
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 CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights