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 .
Status of the Application
This is a Final Action in response to the claims and remarks submitted on 10/15/2025.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 10 are amended.
Claims 4, 6, 8 are canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-10 are pending and examined herein.
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 1-3, 5, 7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claim 10), and system (claim 1) are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-10 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) s. Claims 1 and 10 recites the abstract idea of deployment of replacement components of a construction machine (011). This idea is described by the following claim steps:
an operation table that stores data on an operation information about the machine;
perform a data processing for predicting a malfunction of the machine based on the data on the operation information about the machine and store results as an alarm prediction data;
perform a data processing for calculating a numerical value that represents an availability of non-genuine component as a characteristic of an area where the customer owns or uses the machine, or a numerical value that represents a positive attitude regarding maintenance of the machine as a characteristic of the customer or a numerical value representing a busy month, based on data related to the machine and storing a processes result as characteristic data;
calculating an order reception probability that is a probability of receiving an order of a component associated with the machine, based on a result of prediction of the malfunction and a result of estimation of the characteristic; and
calculating a profit/loss in a case of advance deployment of the component to a distributor that is a base near a location of the machine, based on a profit/loss when an order for the component is received after performing the advance deployment, a profit/loss when an order for the component is not received after performing the advance deployment, a profit/loss when an order for the component is received after performing post deployment and the order reception probability; and
sending, to a distributor, a profit/loss when the component is deployed to the distributor in advance together with a predicted result of the malfunction and with the order reception probability.
This idea falls within the certain methods of Mental Processes and Mathematical Concepts of abstract ideas because it is directed towards observation, evaluation and opinion such that as required when determining deployment of components of a construction machine.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Mental Processes abstract idea groupings of the MPEP 2106, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the Mental Processes abstract idea groupings described in the MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore determined to recite the same abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are:
a network connected to a distributor terminal;
a business data storage section;
a sensor attached to the machine;
wireless communication;
a server;
an order reception prediction data storage section;
an order reception prediction result storage section;
a malfunction prediction section;
an area/customer characteristic estimation section;
an order reception probability calculation section;
an advance deployment profit/loss calculation section; and
an advance deployment plan display section.
However, using a computer environment such as a network and other recited computer elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Determining deployment of replacement components of a construction machine can reasonably be performed by pencil and paper until limited to a computerized environment by requiring a server.
These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and alternatively serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method, computer system, and computer program product that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, and 10 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-9 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above.
Dependent claims 2-3 further narrows the abstract idea by linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation wherein the malfunction prediction section is an alert prediction section that predicts generation of a malfunction alarm from the machine to report a malfunction of the machine; calculates a promotion- applied order reception probability when a promotional activity associated with the component is performed; and the advance deployment profit/loss calculation section calculates the profit/loss when the promotional activity is performed.. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 5 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation wherein the availability of the non-genuine component is determined according to a history of generation of a malfunction alarm of the machine, an order reception history, and information about an operation state of the machine. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information by performing an abstract process such as a calculation in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 7 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use by introducing the limitation wherein the area/customer characteristic estimation section determines the positive attitude for maintenance of the customer based on an index related to soundness of a component installed on the machine and an order reception frequency of the component. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information by performing an abstract process such as a calculation in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 9 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use by introducing the limitation further comprising an advance deployment notification display section that displays information about advance deployment of the component based on the order reception probability and the profit/loss, wherein the advance deployment notification display section displays the information for each machine. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. The claimed limitation merely appears to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide high level of generality computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information see MPEP 2106.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the previously presented 35 USC 101 Applicant argues:
“When considering claim 1 as a whole, as required, the claim sets forth an improvement to the field of construction machine maintenance by strategically deploying components of construction machines that require replacement or maintenance before the machine breaks down of a function of the machine is degraded… In this respect, the claim limitations solves the problems identified above by avoiding needless advancement (overstocking) and stock shortage due to a delay in advance deployment” ” Examiner respectfully disagrees. In contrast from what Applicant is arguing, the benefit and improvement provided by the invention is a business solution rater than a technical solution to a technical problem. Supplying components to users for replacement and replenishment before the machines stop their functions or their functions are reduced is not a technical solution but rather an improvement in a business process providing a business solution in inventory management in order to improve customer service. As MPEP 2106.05 (a) states “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
“Similar to the concepts discussed in BASCOM, Applicant’s claim 1 includes additional elements that are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea…These elements are significant, at least because the claim includes a specific technique for improving the field of construction machine maintenance by strategically deploying components of construction machines that require replacement or maintenance before the machine breaks down of a function of the machine is degraded. Accordingly, the sum of the functions of the additional elements of Applicant's claim 1, at least when viewed as an ordered combination, are significantly more than when each is taken alone. Therefore, similar to the claims in BASCOM…” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed elements either individually or as an ordered combination, recite no more than routine steps of data collection and analysis using generic computer components (i.e. software) and conventional computer data processing activities, this is regardless of the type of information used and being monitored. In BASCOM the inventive concept is found in the ordered combination of the limitations, that is the inventive concept described and claimed is the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. District Court Order, 107 F. Supp. 3d at 652-53. This design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server. BASCOM explains that the inventive concept rests on taking advantage of the ability of at least some ISPs to identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server, and to associate a request for Internet content with a specific individual account. That is, is the ordered combination of the computing elements that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea not the information used in the filtering scheme and elements. Bascom addressed technological problems using a technical solution. Moreover, Applicant has failed to provide an articulated reasoning as to how the use of specific information in calculating a profit/loss when the component is deployed to the distributor in advance is directed to significantly more and how this, when combined, represents an inventive concept that is a non-conventional and a non-generic arrangement of the additional elements as it was demonstrated in BASCOM. It is further noted that the applicant appears to be arguing an improvement in the field of construction machine maintenance by strategically deploying components of construction machines that require replacement or maintenance before the machine breaks down or the function of the machine is degraded. Although, this is not a technical improvement but rather an improvement in a business process providing a business solution in inventory management in order to improve customer service, it is importance to notice that the requirement of the claim is “calculate an order reception probability…”, “calculate a profit/loss in a case of advance deployment of the component” and “wherein a profit/loss calculated by the advance deployment profit/loss calculation section when the component is deployed to the distributor in advance is transmitted to the distributor terminal together with the alarm prediction data and the order reception probability”. That is the requirement of the claim is to merely calculate and provide an alert with the prediction calculated not “strategically deploying components of construction machines that require replacement or maintenance before the machine breaks down or the function of the machine is degraded”, as argued.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Farias, US 7711612, Replenishment Management System And Method. (5) Availability of components necessary to manufacture a product is a major challenge to the manufacturer of that product. Typically, delivery of components to the manufacturer usually involves three separate parties: the supplier, the replenishment service center ("warehouse or RSC") and the manufacturer. In the most basic sense, the availability of each component needs to be monitored to ensure an adequate supply is available to the manufacturer. The warehouse supplying the manufacturer and the supplier to the warehouse are further challenged to meet the demand for components without over stocking the components. However, maximizing the efficiency of delivering the components has been a constant problem in the prior art. For example, if the manufacturer finds either an increased or reduced demand in the product compared to its forecast, strain is placed throughout the supply chain where overstocking or depletion of components can occur quickly. In addition, if the supplier cannot deliver the components, manufacturers will often not be able to react quickly to meet demand, seek alternative sources, etc. Without keeping large stock of components on-hand in the warehouse, supply problems occur readily. However, keeping large stock has additional problems of its own, such as higher storage costs, an increased loss probability because components become outdated, etc. Moreover, electronic parts tend to reduce in value with time (i.e. a part that the manufacturer purchases in January will cost less in March and much less in June and so on).
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 MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629