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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 12/31/25 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1-4, 7, 8, are pending.
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 1-4, 7, 8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system and claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of managing maintenance by making sure a worker works on the correct device and is not accidentally working on another device when providing maintenance work.
For claim 1, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
accepting a maintenance instruction for performing maintenance work on the target device which is one of a plurality of physical devices;
notifying the worker of instruction information according to the maintenance instruction;
upon receipt of an application for permission to perform the maintenance work transmit the application for permission;
upon receipt of a notice of permission for performing the maintenance work on a virtual device of the plurality of virtual devices corresponding to the target device, notify the worker that the maintenance work is permitted to be performed on the virtual device corresponding to the target device; and
permitting the worker to perform, as the maintenance work, only work on the virtual device corresponding to the target device, and prohibiting the worker from working on another virtual device of the plurality of virtual devices corresponding to a non-target device other than the target device among the plurality of physical devices,
wherein when the worker is prohibited from working on the other virtual device, the process further comprises at least one of:
notifying the worker that the worker is prohibited from working on the other virtual device;
notifying an administrator of the target device that the worker has not executed the maintenance work on the virtual device corresponding to the target device;
notifying an administrator of the non-target device that the worker has attempted to work on the other virtual device corresponding to the non-target device; and
(iv) displaying that the worker has not executed the maintenance work on the virtual device corresponding to the target device
The above limitations are reciting a process where maintenance work is being managed by sending instructions and notifications such that a worker is only permitted to work on a single device and is prohibited from working on another device from among a plurality of devices. Providing maintenance and the act of ensuring that a worker is working on the correct device is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities in the form of a commercial practice that is the management of maintenance. When providing maintenance such as working on a car or a printer, a worker has to make sure they are working on the correct car or printer. This is similar to a surgeon making sure they are amputating the correct leg in surgery, where a surgeon is not permitted to amputate the healthy leg of a patient. The management of maintenance work that is being performed by a worker is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities. Managing maintenance of devices and providing workers and administrators with notifications and allowing work to occur is something that is capable of being performed by human beings. Absent the recitation to a target device and a server, etc., the claimed steps can be performed by humans who are performing the claimed steps manually, by accepting maintenance instructions sent via a letter or via verbal conveyance, sending notifications to a worker and/or a manager (administrator) that can be on paper, receiving permission to perform work verbally or via paper notification, and permitting the worker to only work on one device at a time.
The additional elements of claim 1 is the recitation to a plurality of physical devices (the devices that are to be worked on), a communication terminal of a worker that includes a display, and a server with a processor and memory that is executing the functions that defines the abstract idea. The physical devices are generically recited as well as the communication terminal of the worker. These elements have a scope that includes generic computing devices such as a computer and/or a smartphone and/or a laptop that have displays and that are being used to send and receive the claimed data (permission to work on a device, notifications).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device with a processor and memory (non-transitory CRM) that is connected to other generic computing devices, that are merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and non-transitory memory together with generically recited communication terminal and physical devices such as computers in order to perform steps that define the abstract idea. The physical devices are broadly recited and amount to claiming a generic computer that can send and receive data. The communication terminal is broadly recited and reads on a generic computer, such as a smartphone or a tablet computer that has a display to allow for the display of a data to a user. The server with memory and the stored instructions is claiming that a computer that is being used to implement the abstract idea. These elements individually and in combination do not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea by using computing devices that are connected via a network to each other so that the claimed steps that defines the abstract idea can occur, which is largely the act of sending and receiving data. The claimed steps amount to accepting a request for maintenance, sending a notification to a device of worker for display, receiving an application for permission to do work, performing further notification steps using the communication terminal, and permitting work to be performed with a further notification. The technology of the claim is being used to receive information and send information and is nothing more than claiming a tool that is being used to accomplish the abstract idea. The extent of the use of technology in the claims is simply using the physical devices (can be a computer), the worker communication terminal (can be a computer), and the server (is a computer) to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea that can otherwise be practiced by people who are sending requests and notifications using paper or by verbal conveyance. The additional elements are a link to a particular technological environment that is the use of computers to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because they do not amount to the use of a computing device with a processor and memory (non-transitory CRM) that is connected to other generic computing devices, that are merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and non-transitory memory together with generically recited communication terminal and physical devices such as computers in order to perform steps that define the abstract idea. The physical devices are broadly recited and amount to claiming a generic computer that can send and receive data. The communication terminal is broadly recited and reads on a generic computer, such as a smartphone or a tablet computer that has a display to allow for the display of a data to a user. The server with memory and the stored instructions is claiming that a computer that is being used to implement the abstract idea. These elements individually and in combination do not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea by using computing devices that are connected via a network to each other so that the claimed steps that defines the abstract idea can occur. The claimed steps amount to accepting a request for maintenance, sending a notification to a device of worker for display, receiving an application for permission to do work, performing further notification steps using the communication terminal, and permitting work to be performed with a further notification. The technology of the claim is being used to receive information and send information and is nothing more than claiming a tool that is being used to accomplish the abstract idea. The extent of the use of technology in the claims is simply using the physical devices (can be a computer), the worker communication terminal (can be a computer), and the server (is a computer) to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea that can otherwise be practiced by people who are sending requests and notifications using paper or by verbal conveyance. The additional elements are a link to a particular technological environment that is the use of computers to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1 does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claims 2-4, 7, 8, the applicant is reciting a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was set forth for claim 1. Permitting the worker to work on the device in a specified period, and prohibiting work outside the period (claim 2) or when the period has elapsed (claim 3), or when the worker ends the work (claim 4), are elements that serve to define the abstract idea. The same is noted for the claimed notification that is recited in claim 7. The sending of a notification(s) is also considered to be part of the abstract idea. Claim 8 is also reciting more about the abstract idea in terms of identification information for the worker that is associated to the device to be worked on. No further additional elements are claimed. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore for the above reasons claims 1-4, 7, 8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
The 112b rejection of claim 4 has been overcome by the amendment to the claims that moots the issue at hand in the rejection.
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On pages 5-7 the applicant summarizes the USPTO eligibility analysis that is used to determine if a claim is eligible. The comments are noted. The applicant argues on page 7 that the management of maintenance does not fit into any one of the categories for abstract ideas set forth in MPEP 2106.05(a)(2). This is not persuasive. The management of maintenance for devices of many different types is something that predates computers and is known to be done by humans. The eligibility guidance does not have to expressly state that management of maintenance is an abstract idea for an examiner to properly conclude that claims directed to managing maintenance are reciting an abstract idea. The claims reasonably fall into the category of reciting a commercial interactions (commercial practice) that is the management of maintenance by sending messages and notifications to a worker and by ensuring that the worker only works on a single device at a time. That is claiming a process for the management of maintenance and is considered to be reciting an abstract idea. The argument that the claims do not recite an abstract idea is not persuasive.
The argument that the claims are analogous to example 38 is not persuasive. The instant pending claims do recite a judicial exception as is set forth in the rejection of record so the eligibility analysis must proceed to the 2nd prong and step 2B.
To the extent that the arguments rely on the amended claims, the current rejection of record addresses the amended claims and moots the arguments from the applicant. The applicant argues that the claims are preventing the possibility that a worker is working on the wrong device (not the target device) and provides for users to be informed of the workers progress. Nothing that is being argued is technological in nature as the argued elements are what defines the abstract idea. The preventing of a worker from working on a non-target device and the sending of notifications to users are elements that are part of the abstract idea. That does not provide for integration into a practical application, does not improve the functioning of a computer as has been alleged, and does not amount to significantly more. The result of the claim does not serve to improve technology because nothing that is claimed has an effect on the claimed target devices as far as how they operation or function. The sending of messages to perform maintenance, receiving permission to do the work, sending of notifications, and preventing a worker from working on a non-target device does not improve any of the technology recited in the claim by way of the target devices (physical devices) or the server or the communication terminal. Technology and/or a technical field is not being improved as a result of performing the claimed invention. Any alleged improvement is found in the abstract idea itself which does not render the claims eligible.
As to the argument that the claims prevent a worker from working on a non-target device, the examiner notes that this is claimed functionally where the claim does not recite how this is caused to occur. A worker is being informed of the fact that they have permission to work on a target device and the claim recites that the worker is permitted to work on the target device but is prevented from working on a non-target device in a broad and functional manner that is not claiming anything about how the technology of the claim is being used to allow for this function to occur. The claims recite what the server does stepwise as far as a broad functional end result, but do not recite how the server is involved in executing the claimed step such that it cannot be performed by a person or would amount to more than a general link to computer implementation for the abstract idea. Therefore, arguing that the claims include an inventive concept that is preventing a worker from working on a non-target device by preventing the worker from working on a non-target device is not persuasive. The claims do not recite how this occurs, just the desired end result that is to be achieved. That does not provide for an improvement to technology or the use of technology that amounts to more than an instruction for one to use a server to perform steps that defines the abstract idea. The argument is not persuasive.
The arguments are not persuasive and the 35 USC 101 rejection is being maintained.
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 DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626