DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 13-20 and 22 are pending. Claims 2, 5, 11-12 and 21 are cancelled.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/10/26, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘the pending claims recite limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind’ because the ‘claimed operational data is machine-generated data originating from physical manufacturing equipment’ (page 9).
It is respectfully submitted that despite the source or association of the data it still remains abstract data that humans are capable of manipulating and as indicated below generally linking the use of the judicial exception, e.g. the data source, to a particular technological environment or field of use is not part of the abstract ideas or considered significantly more than the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Also note that ‘receiving the operation data’ is an additional element, mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)) as explained below in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘A human mind is not equipped to practically perform this operation on the volume and complexity of operational data generated by industrial manufacturing equipment’ (page 9).
It is respectfully submitted that this point is moot because no specific volume of operational data is actually claimed. The human mind is capable of handling the complexity of the data, at least, because the claims themselves were formulated by a human. In addition, utilizing a computer to process large volumes of data is merely applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, and not considered significantly more. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that selecting data from a ‘cycle time mapping data structure’ is a computer process and not a mental process (pages 9-10).
It is respectfully submitted that a human is capable of selecting data from a mapping data structure, e.g. a table, and this therefore constitutes a mental process. As indicated above merely applying the exception with generic computer technology is not considered significantly more, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘determining efficiency metrics using the partitioned data segments and the dynamically selected cycle times and then aggregating those metrics into an OEE for the industrial system… is a multi-step, data-intensive computation across multiple data segments, each with different cycle time parameters - not a simple observation, evaluation, or judgment that a human could perform mentally or with pen and paper’ (page 10).
It is respectfully submitted that a human is capable of performing complex, multistep calculations, e.g. adding each column of a two-dimensional table and then averaging the results of each addition, and this therefore constitutes a mental process. As indicated above merely applying the exception with generic computer technology is not considered significantly more, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘Taken as an ordered combination, the amended claims recite a technical pipeline of (1) receiving machine-generated operational data from industrial devices, (2) programmatically partitioning that data into segments by part type, (3) querying a data structure to dynamically select the appropriate cycle time for each part type, and ( 4) computing per-part-type efficiency metrics using those variable cycle times. The human mind is not equipped to perform these operations on industrial manufacturing datasets’ (page 10).
It is respectfully submitted that each of these elements was addressed above and no evidence or reasoned argument is provided as to why the ‘ordered combination’ would render a human incapable of performing these steps. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the instant limitations are analogous to SRI vs Cisco Systems and here the human mind is not equipped to perform the instant limitations (page 10).
It is respectfully submitted that the instant claims are not analogous to SRI vs Cisco Systems, at least, because SRI involved continuous monitoring of specific network traffic that is not readily accessible to humans. The instant claims are, however, analogous to those in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) that was cited in SRI, see also MPEP 2106, and that were not considered eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example, Electric Power Group recites ‘receiving a plurality of data streams, each of the data streams comprising sub-second, time stamped synchronized phasor measurements wherein the measurements in each stream are collected in real time… deriving a composite indicator of reliability that is an indicator of power grid vulnerability and is derived from a combination of one or more real time measurements or computations of measurements from the data streams’ that is similar to the receiving of operational data and generating a report in the instant claims. It is also noted that the SRI claims were found eligible because they involved an improvement to computer technology whereas the instant claims merely employ generic computer technology. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office’s characterization of the claims oversimplifies them and that the claims recite ‘a specific technical pipeline involving data partitioning by part identifiers, dynamic cycle time selection via a data structure, and per-part-type time-weighted efficiency metric computation’ (pages 10-11).
It is respectfully submitted that the Office action has provided a detailed analysis of the claims in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and each additional element was addressed (see below). Despite the various steps in the claimed algorithmic computation, the algorithm is still an abstract algorithm. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments advanced to support the assertion that ‘human mind cannot practically perform the subject matter of the pending claims’ (page 11) are addressed above.
Applicant argues that the claims provide a ‘an improvement to OEE technology for industrial manufacturing systems’ (page 11), that there is an ‘identified deficiency in a specific technology (OEE) that causes the two standard OEE computation methods to produce inconsistent results’ (page 12), the claimed ‘approach "modifies the traditional OEE determination methods to incorporate a production time for part(s)" and "implements an improved technical solution that takes into account the Ideal Cycle Times of the parts being produced and scrapped."’ (page 12), that the traditional metric is inaccurate and ‘the technology disclosed herein provide a technical solution to the inaccuracies’ that the claims disclose the improvement (page 13).
It is respectfully submitted that while the claimed invention may improve the accuracy of calculated data, an improved system for generating more accurate data is merely an improvement to an abstract idea and eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as cited in MPEP 2106.04, i.e. an improvement to the abstract idea itself (organizing, selecting and analyzing data and generating a report) is still merely an abstract idea. Data manipulation alone is not considered to provide a technical solution to a technical problem and performing data manipulation using a computer is merely applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant states that ‘improvement here is not to the abstract idea of performing calculations - it is to the technological field of OEE analytics for industrial systems’ (page 13).
It is respectfully submitted that OEE analytics is an abstract concept involving analysis of OEE information and the improvement is therefore abstract. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the improvement is analogous to the case of Diamond v. Diehr and USPTO Example 45 (Controller for Injection Mold) (page 14).
It is respectfully submitted that the instant claims are not analogous to those in either Diamond or Example 45 because Diamond recites ‘opening the press automatically when a said comparison indicates equivalence’ (claim 1) and Example 45 recites ‘(d) send control signals to the injection molding apparatus once the polyurethane has reached a target percentage, the control signals instructing the apparatus to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane from the mold’ (claim 2). I.e. both Diamond and Example 45 apply any recited abstract concept to actually perform physical control of a system — hence improving the functioning of the system. By contrast the instant claims merely generate a report for display but do not perform any physical control of the industrial system. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘the amended claims recite "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea’ and cites ‘improvements’ (page 14). It is respectfully submitted that the ‘improvement’ argument was addressed above and Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘No evidence has been presented that this specific combination of steps was well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time of filing’, that the Office’s ‘characterization fails to consider the claim limitations as an ordered combination’ and ‘the combination of all the claimed steps taken together amounts to significantly more than any individual calculation step because they add computations and improve the technical field of OEE analytics for industrial manufacturing’ (pages 15-16).
It is respectfully submitted that the ordered steps of collecting data, analyzing the data and generating a report are at least obvious over Roebke et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20100010879 as explained in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in the Office Action of 1/5/2026. The combination of individual steps recited in the abstract analysis algorithm in the amended claims were not characterized as well-understood, routine, or conventional and were not rejected as obvious. However, a combination of abstract steps that constitute an abstract algorithm is still merely an abstract algorithm/idea and not considered eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is also noted that consideration of 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 is a separate enquiry to consideration under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
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, 3-4, 6-10, 13-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea (mental process) of organizing, selecting and analyzing data and generating a report based on the result.
Claim 1 recites a system for implementing variable cycle times for overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) analytics for industrial systems, i.e. a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
partition, based on part identifiers included in the operational data, the operational data into a plurality of data segments, wherein each data segment of the plurality of data segments is associated with a respective type of part manufactured by the industrial system;
dynamically select, from a plurality of cycle times included in an ideal cycle time mapping data structure, a first cycle time for a first type of part manufactured by the industrial system as part of the manufacturing process;
determine, using a first data segment of the plurality of data segments, a first efficiency metric associated with manufacturing the first type of part, wherein the first data segment is associated with manufacturing the first type of part and the first cycle time;
dynamically select, from the plurality of cycle times included in the ideal cycle time mapping data structure, a second cycle time for a second type of part manufactured by the industrial system as part of the manufacturing process, wherein the second cycle time is different from the first cycle time;
determine, using a second data segment of the plurality of data segments, a second efficiency metric associated with manufacturing the second type of part, wherein the second data segment is associated with manufacturing the second type of part and the second cycle time;
determine, based on the first efficiency metric and the second efficiency metric, an OEE of the industrial system associated with performance of the manufacturing process; and
generate… a report, the report indicating the OEE of the industrial system that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. an industrial system and manufacturing process (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), one or more electronic processors (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), receive, from one or more industrial devices of an industrial system, operational data describing a manufacturing process of the industrial system while the industrial system performs the manufacturing process (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)), that is generally linked to the use of the judicial exception in a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and transmit a report (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A and MPEP 2106.05(d)) for display (intended use) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Note that industrial systems and manufacturing processes are well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Rogers U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160222791 [0022], Song U.S. Patent Publication No. 20240032368 [0048] and the references cited below in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .
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, an industrial system and manufacturing process (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), one or more electronic processors (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), receive, from one or more industrial devices of an industrial system, operational data describing a manufacturing process of the industrial system while the industrial system performs the manufacturing process (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)), that is generally linked to the use of the judicial exception in a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and transmit a report (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A and MPEP 2106.05(d)) for display (intended use) are not considered significantly more. Considering the additionally elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites ‘determine the OEE of the industrial system based on the first efficiency metric and the second efficiency metric’ (mental process involving evaluation of data). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 4 merely recites that the abstract first efficiency metric is an abstract quality metric and wherein the OEE of the industrial system is an OEE percentage (abstract data). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites ‘determine the first efficiency metric by determining a first runtime associated with manufacturing a set of non-scrap parts of the first type of parts; and determining a second runtime associated with manufacturing the first type of parts’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites ‘determine the first efficiency metric based on the first runtime, the second runtime, and the first cycle time’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites ‘determine the first runtime by determining a total number of non-scrap parts included in the set of non-scrap parts of the first type of parts, wherein the first runtime is determined based on the first cycle time and the total number of non-scrap parts included in the set of non-scrap parts’ (mental process involving data processing/analysis). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites ‘determine the second runtime by determining a total number of the first type of parts, wherein the second runtime is determined based on the first cycle time and the total number of the first type of parts’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites a method for implementing variable cycle times for overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) analytics for industrial systems, i.e. a process, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
partitioning, with the one or more electronic processors, based on part identifiers included in the operational data, the operational data into a plurality of data segments, wherein each data segment of the plurality of data segments is associated with a respective type of part manufactured by the industrial system;
dynamically selecting, with the one or more electronic processors, from a plurality of cycle times included in an ideal cycle time mapping data structure, a cycle time for a type of part manufactured by the industrial system as part of the manufacturing process;
determining, with the one or more electronic processors, a first runtime for non-scrap parts of the type of part based on the cycle time and a total number of non-scrap parts of the type of part;
determining, with the one or more electronic processors, a second runtime associated with manufacturing the type of part based on the cycle time and a total number of parts manufactured of the type of part;
determining, with the one or more electronic processors, a quality metric associated with manufacturing the type of part based on a ratio of the first runtime to the second runtime,
wherein the quality metric is determined using a data segment of the plurality of data segments;
determining, with the one or more electronic processors, an efficiency of the industrial system based at least in part on the quality metric; and
generating an efficiency report, the efficiency report indicating the quality metric that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. an industrial system and manufacturing process (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), one or more electronic processors (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), receiving, with one or more electronic processors, operational data from one or more industrial devices of an industrial system, the operational data describing a manufacturing process of the industrial system (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)) that is generally linked to the use of the judicial exception in a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and transmitting, with the one or more electronic processors, an efficiency report (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A and MPEP 2106.05(d)) for display (intended use) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. an industrial system and manufacturing process (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), one or more electronic processors (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), receiving, with one or more electronic processors, operational data from one or more industrial devices of an industrial system, the operational data describing a manufacturing process of the industrial system (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)) that is generally linked to the use of the judicial exception in a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and transmitting, with the one or more electronic processors, an efficiency report (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A and MPEP 2106.05(d)) for display (intended use) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites ‘determining the quality metric includes determining a quality percentage’ (mental process). The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites ‘determining a performance metric based on a total number of parts manufactured for the type of part, a total runtime for the type of part, and the cycle time; and
determining an availability metric based on the total runtime for the type of part and an available time, wherein the efficiency of the industrial system is based on the performance metric, the availability metric, and the quality metric’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions that, i.e. an article of manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
partitioning, based on part identifiers included in the operational data, the operational data into a plurality of data segments, wherein each data segment of the plurality of data segments is associated with a respective type of part manufactured by the industrial system;
dynamically selecting, from a plurality of cycle times included in an ideal cycle time mapping data structure, a first cycle time for a first type of part manufactured by the industrial system as part of the manufacturing process;
determining, using a first data segment of the plurality of data segments, a first quality metric associated with manufacturing the first type of part. wherein the first data segment is associated with manufacturing the first type of part and the first cycle time;
dynamically selecting, from the plurality of cycle times included in an ideal cycle time mapping data structure, a second cycle time for a second type of part manufactured by the industrial system as part of the manufacturing process, wherein the second cycle time is different from the first cycle time;
determining, using a second data segment of the plurality of data, a second quality metric associated with manufacturing the second type of part, wherein the second data segment is associated with manufacturing the second type of part and the second cycle time; and
generating a report, the report including the first quality metric and the second quality metric that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by an electronic processor (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), an industrial system and manufacturing process (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), receiving operational data from a plurality of industrial devices included in an industrial system, the operational data describing a manufacturing process of the industrial system (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)) that is generally linked to the use of the judicial exception in a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and transmitting a report (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A and MPEP 2106.05(d)) to a display device (insignificant extra-solution elements — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)) for display (intended use) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by an electronic processor (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), an industrial system and manufacturing process (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), receiving operational data from a plurality of industrial devices included in an industrial system, the operational data describing a manufacturing process of the industrial system (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)) that is generally linked to the use of the judicial exception in a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and transmitting a report (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A and MPEP 2106.05(d)) to a display device (insignificant extra-solution elements — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)) for display (intended use) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites ‘determining, based on the first quality metric and the second quality metric, an aggregated quality metric for the industrial system, wherein the report also includes the aggregated quality metric for the industrial system’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites ‘determining, based at least in part on the first quality metric and the second quality metric, an OEE for the industrial system associated with performance of the manufacturing process’ (mental process), wherein the report also includes the OEE for the industrial system (specifying abstract data). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 18 recites ‘dynamically selecting, from the plurality of cycle times included in an ideal cycle time mapping data structure, a third cycle time for a third type of part manufactured by the industrial system as part of the manufacturing process, wherein the third cycle time is different from the first cycle time and the second cycle time; and determining, using a third data segment of the plurality of data segments, a third quality metric associated with manufacturing the third type of part, wherein the third data segment is associated with manufacturing the third type of part and the third cycle time, wherein the report also includes the third quality metric’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites ‘determining a first runtime associated with manufacturing a set of non-scrap parts of the first type of parts; and determining a second runtime associated with manufacturing the first type of parts, wherein the first quality metric is based on the first runtime, the second runtime, and the first cycle time’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites ‘determining a total number of non-scrap parts included in the set of non-scrap parts of the first type of parts, wherein the first runtime is determined based on the first cycle time and the total number of non-scrap parts included in the set of non-scrap parts, and wherein determining the second runtime includes determining a total number of the first type of parts, wherein the second runtime is determined based on the first cycle time and the total number of the first type of parts’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 22 recites the one or more electronic processors are configured to: generate a graphical user interface related to the report (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), wherein the graphical user interface is interactive and visually represents at least a portion of the report in graphical form (insignificant extra-solution elements — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)). Note that interactive graphical user interfaces are well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Rodriquez U.S. Patent No. 6263346 [col. 3 line 63 – col. 4 line 17]. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dev et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20240210935 that discloses a predictive model for determining overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) in industrial equipment.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights