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 Claims
Claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed 09/09/2025, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10-12, filed 09/09/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Under Step 2A Prong One, applicant argues that the claims do not recite a judicial process of certain methods organizing human activity not mental processes. Examiner disagrees. Step 2A Prong One evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. In the applicant’s claims, a judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim. The claim limitations are drawn to supervising industrial equipment for reliability, failure, etc. and directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations detailing the observation of various equipment data, and making a judgment or opinion based on the observed and evaluated data. The claim limitations also correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as evidenced by limitations relating to the supervision of industrial equipment and performing actions based on the data supervised. The claim recites an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the' directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The applicant’s specification indicates in [0065] that the steps are performed by a person interacting with said computing terminal, especially via a virtual interface, or else specifically when an operator interacts with said equipment. Further, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) provides that the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person and activity that involves multiple people, and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. Additionally, as stated above, the claims directly correspond to the observation of various equipment data, and making a judgment or opinion based on the observed and evaluated data (mental processes: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Acquiring measured physical quantities that are time-stamped and automatically recorded, using sensor-derived indicators representative of performance/degradation, training a virtual model using a constricted dataset, automatically generating operational outputs in response to a comparison of the projected status to a minimal operating states all correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes as well. Also, it is important to note that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process. This is the case in the applicant’s invention. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. The sensors that are used to collect data indicating performance or degradation amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. The limitation of “training at least one virtual model on the basis of the dataset” is a limitation that corresponds to the above-mentioned judicial exception, and also amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. As indicated above, automatically generating an operation output in response to comparing a projected status to a minimal operation states also corresponds to the above-mentioned judicial exception, as well as the lifecycle integration. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: industrial equipment, digital system, sensors associated with the equipment, and a virtual model. The additional element of the virtual model and digital system are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional element is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the industrial equipment, and sensors associated therewith, amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, applicant argues that the claims are eligible because the ordered combination of limitations in claim 1 is not well-understood. routine, or conventional. Examiner disagrees. Whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry is only one consideration under Step 2B. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Further, applicant states that “…the claimed process requires a technical analysis of the equipment series to determine which tasks, usage conditions, and status indicators are relevant to aging correlations. This analysis is performed with input from engineers familiar with the design and operation of the equipment.” Which further indicates that the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activity.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 17, filed 09/09/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 recite a system (i.e. machine). Therefore claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations of installing within a facility (3) at least one [industrial equipment] (2) resulting from a process of manufacturing (4) and being representative of a series, then at least operating [said equipment] (2) in a context of a period (5) up to a step of a maintenance (6) to be performed; defining at least one projected maintenance (7) subsequent to said maintenance (6) to be performed, after at least one scenario (8) with projected usage conditions (110) of [said equipment] (2) over a projected period (70) of operation, characterized in that the manufacturing (4), installation, operation and maintenance of [said equipment] (2) induce at least: a manufacturing and maintenance log (9) comprising: tasks (90) for manufacturing said at least one equipment (2) until said installation, and/or tasks (90) of at least one prior maintenance (10) of [said equipment] (2); a usage log (11) of [said equipment] (2) over said period (5) between the installation and said maintenance (6) to be performed, said usage log (11) comprising usage conditions (110) of [said equipment] (2) during said period (5); wherein the usage conditions (110) comprise measured physical quantities obtained from [sensors associated with the equipment] (2), selected from the group consisting of temperature, pressure, vibration, flow rate, electrical current, mileage, load, speed, and combinations thereof, the measured values being time-stamped and recorded automatically; a log (120) of status (13) of [said equipment] (2), said log (12) of status (13) comprising sensor-derived material indicators (120) representative of performance or degradation of the equipment (2), including flow rate, delivery pressure, compression pressure, or other non-destructive test measurements; wherein by means of a technical analysis of [said equipment] (2) from the series, at least one correlation (14) is determined between at least one of said tasks (90) and/or at least one of said usage conditions (110), and at least one of the material indicators (120) of said status (13), said correlation (14) establishing at least one link between causes of aging and consequences of aging of the equipment (2); in the correlation (14): the tasks (90) are characterized by those identified as critical, and/or the tasks (90) are characterized by the usage conditions (110) which are characterized by those to which the equipment (2) is sensitive and exposed during operation or when stopped, the tasks (90) and the conditions (110) considered impacting the status (13) of [said equipment] (2); the material status (13) of [the equipment] (2) is characterized by the indicators (120) identified as being representative of this status (13) of [said equipment] (2); then, in the correlation (14), the following are determined: measured physical quantities or functions of the measured physical quantities characterizing the usage conditions (110) to which said equipment (2) is sensitive and exposed during operation or when stopped; measured physical quantities or functions of the measured physical quantities characterizing the material status (13) of the equipment (2) at a given instant; and then for a subset of equipment of said series, recovering and extracting data associated with these tasks (90), and data associated with the physical quantities or functions of physical quantities relating to these usage conditions (110) and to these material indicators (120), as identified in said correlation (14), so as to obtain a dataset (15); training at least one [virtual model] (16), on the basis of the dataset (15); and wherein during the maintenance (6) of said equipment (2) to be performed, values are submitted to said [model] (16): of at least one of the tasks (90) of the manufacturing and maintenance log (9) and of at least one of the usage conditions (110) of the usage log (11), and of at least one of the tasks (90) of the maintenance (6) to be performed and of said projected usage conditions (110) of the scenario (8); said [model] (16) generating a projected status (130) of said equipment (2) subsequent to said maintenance (6) to be performed, said projected status (130) being compared to a minimal status (17) identified as being required for the operation of said equipment (2) and wherein in response to said comparison, the system automatically generates at least one operational output selected from:(i) a maintenance decision identifying sufficient or optimal tasks (90) for execution, (ii) calculation of maximal usage limits (18) for controllable projected usage conditions (110), and (iii) refresh of said limits and maintenance schedule during operation. The claim limitations are drawn to supervising industrial equipment for reliability, failure, etc. and directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations detailing the observation of various equipment data, and making a judgment or opinion based on the observed and evaluated data. The claim limitations also correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as evidenced by limitations relating to the supervision of industrial equipment and performing actions based on the data supervised. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: industrial equipment, digital system, sensors associated with the equipment, and a virtual model. The additional element of the virtual model and digital system are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional element is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the industrial equipment, and sensors associated therewith, amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-20 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closes patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Smiley (2014/0358601) and Mishra (US 11,017,321). Smiley discloses one or more techniques and/or systems for developing a health profile of an industrial asset based upon data pertaining to such an industrial asset. At least some of the data is transformed into primary state indicators, respectively representative of the status or condition of an aspect of the industrial asset. Using the primary state indicators, one or more events that are likely to occur to the industrial asset are identified and a health profile is developed based upon such events. The health profile may describe maintenance actions that will reduce a likelihood of an event (s) occurring, may describe a business impact on an entity associated with the industrial asset if an event(s) occurs, and/or may describe a performance impact on the industrial asset if an event(s) occurs. Mishra discloses a system that leverages artificial intelligence and machine learning to analyze and categorize events associated with an equipment asset, such as industrial machinery, to determine a status associated with the equipment asset, and to determine maintenance actions to be performed with respect to the equipment asset to prevent, or reduce the likelihood or severity of, occurrence of a fault at the equipment asset. Machine learning models may be trained to categorize events that are detected based on operating characteristics data associated with the equipment asset, to determine a status of the equipment asset, and to recommend one or more maintenance actions. The prior art references do not disclose the details of the applicant’s claims as amended.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “On the Use of Predictive Models for Improving the Quality of Industrial Maintenance: an Analytical Literature Review of Maintenance Strategies (O. Merkt, 2019) which discloses a data driven perspective for improving the quality of maintenance for machines and processes in industrial environments. The publication reviews existing maintenance works by highlighting the main challenges and benefits and shares recommendations and good practices for the appropriate usage of data analysis tools and techniques. The publication highlights that in any industrial setup, the quality of maintenance improves when the applied data driven techniques and technologies: (i) have economical justifications; and (ii) take into consideration the conformity with the industry standards. The article also explores the entire data driven model development life cycle: data acquisition and analysis, model development and model evaluation. The prior art reference does not disclose the details of the applicant’s claims as amended.
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628