Detailed Action
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 .
Request/or Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17( e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 3, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 101
3. 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.
4. 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.
Step One:
Under Step one of an analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 9 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and claim 17 is directed to a system claim. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
Step 2A. Prong 1:
The claims disclose the abstract idea of performing asset lifecycle modeling.
Representative claim 1 recites:
a) receiving asset information comprising asset probability of failure over an expected life span of an asset;
b) creating a failure tree having a plurality of nodes, where each node represents a period of time within which an asset may fail;
c) assigning an asset probability of failure to each node in the failure tree;
d) computing a cumulative probability of failure at each node in the failure tree;
e) performing an intervention on the asset during a time period represented by at least one node in the failure tree; and
calculating a hazard rate and an intervention rate, based upon the results of the intervention performed and the cumulative probability of failure, that result in a lowest aggregate cost over the lifespan of the asset.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in nonbold above; the remaining limitations are "additional elements."
Claim 2 further recites wherein the intervention is reactive or proactive, which is a non computer function.
Claim 3 further recites wherein the intervention is reactive at each failure node and the hazard rate is a baseline hazard rate, which is a non computer function.
Claim 4 further recite wherein the intervention is proactive and the intervention rate is a probability of performing proactive interventions to mitigate a failure risk. Accordingly, claim 4 recites a mathematical function, which the courts have found to be non statutory.
Claim 5 further recites:
applying a plurality of intervention hypotheses;
calculating a hazard rate and an intervention rate for each intervention hypothesis in the plurality of intervention hypotheses;
determining an optimal intervention hypothesis based upon the hazard rate and intervention rate calculated for each intervention hypothesis; and
defining an intervention schedule based upon the optimal intervention hypothesis.
Accordingly, the steps or functions of defining, determining, defining involve generic computer functions. The steps or functions of calculating are similar to mathematical functions.
Claim 6 further recite wherein the intervention hypothesis comprises proactively replacing, maintaining, or repairing the asset. Accordingly, the functions of replacing, maintaining, and repairing, involve generic computer functions
Claim 7 further recite wherein the intervention schedule comprises replacing, maintaining, or repairing the asset at scheduled intervals over the expected life of the asset. Accordingly, the steps or functions of replacing, maintaining, and repairing, involve generic computer functions.
Claims 8 and 16 further recites:
repeating a) - f) for a plurality of assets. Accordingly, the steps or functions of repeating are similar to mathematical functions.
Claim 9 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon at least one program, the at least one program including instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method in a processor based system for asset lifecycle modelling, comprising:
a) receiving asset information comprising asset probability of failure over an expected life span of an asset;
b) creating a failure tree having a plurality of nodes, where each node represents a period of time within which an asset may fail;
c) assigning an asset probability of failure to each node in the failure tree;
d) computing a cumulative probability of failure at each node in the failure tree;
e) applying performing an intervention on the asset during a time period represented by to at least one node in the failure tree; and
f) calculating a hazard rate and an intervention rate, based upon the results of the intervention performed and the cumulative probability of failure, that result in a lowest aggregate cost over the lifespan of the asset.
Claim 10 further recites wherein the intervention is reactive or proactive, which is a non computer function.
.
Claim 11 further recites wherein the intervention is reactive at each failure node and the hazard rate is a baseline hazard rate, which is a non computer function.
Claim 12 further recites wherein the intervention is proactive and the intervention rate is a probability of performing proactive interventions to mitigate a failure risk,
Accordingly, claim 12 recites a mathematical function, which the courts have found to be non statutory.
Claim 13 further recites applying a plurality of intervention hypotheses;
calculating a hazard rate and an intervention rate for each intervention hypothesis in the plurality of intervention hypotheses;
determining an optimal intervention hypothesis based upon the hazard rate and intervention rate calculated for each intervention hypothesis; and
defining an intervention schedule based upon the optimal intervention hypothesis.
Accordingly, the steps or functions of defining, determining, defining involve generic computer functions. The steps or functions of calculating are similar to mathematical functions.
Claim 14 further recites wherein the intervention hypothesis comprises replacing, maintaining, or repairing the asset. Accordingly, the steps of replacing, maintaining, and repairing, involve generic computer functions.
Claim 15 further recites wherein the intervention schedule comprises replacing, maintaining, or repairing the asset at scheduled intervals over the expected life of the asset. Accordingly, the function of replacing, maintaining, and repairing, involve generic computer functions.
Claim 16 further recites repeating a) - f) for a plurality of assets. Accordingly, the steps or functions of repeating are similar to mathematical functions.
Claim 17 recites at least one data source comprising asset information;
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory having stored therein at least one program, the at least one program including instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to perform a method, comprising:
a) receiving asset information comprising asset probability of failure over an expected life span of an asset;
b) creating a failure tree having a plurality of nodes, where each node represents a period of time within which an asset may fail;
c) assigning an asset probability of failure to each node in the failure tree;
d) computing a cumulative probability of failure at each node in the failure tree;
e) applying performing an intervention on the asset during a time period represented by to at least one node in the failure tree; and
f) calculating a hazard rate and an intervention rate based upon the results of the intervention performed and the cumulative probability of failure, that result in a lowest aggregate cost over the lifespan of the asset.
Claim 18 further wherein the data source further comprises sensors for gathering asset information. The steps or functions of “gathering” are considered as data gathering functions
Claim 19 further recites wherein the data source further comprises machine learning software, that when executed by a processor, processes the asset information. Accordingly, the function of processes involves generic computer functions
Claim 20 further recites wherein the method further comprises:
repeating a) - f) for a plurality of assets. Accordingly, the step or function of repeating is similar to a mathematical function.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of performing mental processes such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
As per independent claims 1, 9 and 17, Applicant is to be noted that the steps or functions of “receiving” are considered as data gathering functions. The functions of “creating” and “assigning” involve generic computer functions. The steps or functions of “performing” and “calculating” are similar to mathematical functions.
The claims recite the idea of performing various conceptual steps generically resulting in the management of asset. As determined earlier, none of these steps recites specific technological implementation details, but instead get to this result by receiving, creating and assigning data. Thus, the claims are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity.
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in the claims, the independent claims (Claims 9 and 16 only) recite additional elements including a generic data gathering step of a processor and memory. Claim 1 does not contain any computer structures to perform the claimed steps.
The claimed “processor and memory” (claims 9 and 17) are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system. Performing steps or functions by a processor merely limits the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers to process data (i.e. processing asset data).
Performing steps by a generic machine, or server computing device merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (1).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Performance of the claimed steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claims does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Positively reciting a "processor " and "memory", does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be one or more of a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed processor is noted to a be a generic computer assigning an asset probability of failure to each node in the failure tree, computing a cumulative probability of failure at each node in the failure tree. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed "processor", and "memory" are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 9 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claim 1. Dependent claims 10-16 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claim 9. Dependent claims 18-20 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claim 17. Claim 19 recites the additional elements of a machine learning software. The claimed machine learning software limitation does not reflect any improvement in machine learning model (or in another technology/functioning of a computer), and are merely generic computer elements. The fact that the claims go into detail about this machine learning software do not provide any counter argument to the foregoing points. The provision of additional detail of a generic computer element does not render the element any less generic. The claimed steps do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions in view of MPEP 2106 .05(d)(11). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
5. The prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest:
“creating a failure tree having a plurality of nodes, where each node represents a period of time within which an asset may fail, assigning an asset probability of failure to each node in the failure tree, computing a cumulative probability of failure at each node in the failure tree, applying performing an intervention on the asset during a time period represented by at least one node in the failure tree, calculating a hazard rate and an intervention rate, based upon the results of the intervention performed and the cumulative probability of failure, that result in a lowest aggregate cost over the lifespan of the asset” as recited in claims 1, 9 and 17.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed December 3, 2025 have been considered but are not persuasive and moot in view of a new ground of rejection above.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Koduvely et al (US Publication No. 201402888908) teaches a probability of failure of an asset is usually dependent on a set of defect growth models of defects, resulting from wear and tear of the asset. To estimate parameters of the defect growth models of the pipeline such as a growth speed, a set of high quality inspection data is required to be collected at regular intervals of time. Existing methods for estimating the time-to-failure of the asset provide a probability of failure of the asset. The probability of failure needs to be estimated for several years, and extrapolated into the future for getting an estimate of the remaining life span of the asset.
- Mandalia et al (US Publication No. US 20160063417 A1) teaches life cycle management for an asset.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Romain Jeanty whose telephone number is (571). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571 272-6787. 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.
/ROMAIN JEANTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624