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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/27/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to communication filed on 2/9/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
Claims 1-3, 7-9 are currently amended.
Claims 1-9 are currently under examination and have been rejected as follows.
IDS
The information disclosure statements filed on 5/19/2026 and 10/26/2023 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101 will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 103 will be maintained. The 103 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 101:
Step 2A Prong 1:
Applicant argues on page 10 of remarks 2/9/2026:
“…the Examiner has not addressed Applicant's detailed traversal points as set forth at pages 12-17 of the response filed on September 10, 2025 as to why the novel combination of features as recited in claim 1 of the present application could not be characterized as merely being a ‘fundamental’ economic practice to any extent.
“Instead, the recited maintenance scheduling device adds maintenance operations for an
industrial machine that exceed a checkup interval period on the maintenance date related to the mandatory maintenance items, which are not included in the mandatory maintenance items, and
thus involves a specific and novel combination of features in which the advantages indicated at pages 15-16 of the response filed on September 10, 2025 are obtained. This analysis is consistent with the directives of MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).II.A.”
“The Examiner also did not address this important point in the latest Office Action, but still proceeded to make the action final.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Novelty, while importantly evaluated in view of 35 USC 102/103, is not considered in Step 2A Prong One of eligibility analysis. MPEP 2106.04 I states “even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions”. As addressed by Examiner on page 3 of Office Action 11/14/2025, gathering maintenance data and optimally scheduling human maintenance on industrial assets to preserve lifespan and maximize production (also see Applicant specification ¶ [0004]) falls within mitigating risk as it pertains to fundamental economic principles or practices under the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). Upon continued examination, the claims also describe, recite or set forth concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, and judgement) under the abstract grouping of Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Applicant argues on page 11 of remarks 2/9/2026:
“Accordingly, Applicant has opted to further amend independent claim 1 in this paper in order to more precisely recite "how technologically these functions are accomplished beyond being performed by generic computer systems" and/or how they are "improvements in the computer technology" in response to the Examiner's above-quoted comments in this regard.
“More particularly, Applicant respectfully further traverses these rejections as being inapplicable to the claims, especially as newly-amended in this paper…. “the maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items includes at least periodic component replacement operation and checkup operation’….
“Therefore, the device/method recited in newly-amended independent claims 1 and 7 of the present application includes an advantageous combination of features which includes formulation of an optimized maintenance schedule, the maintenance includes at least periodic component replacement operation and checkup operation, contributing not only time savings and
efficiency for human users, but also results in, due to the reduction in idle time, advantageous technological and physical effects such as energy savings.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear to Examiner, despite alleged entrepreneurial advantages, how the amended limitation ‘the maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items includes at least periodic component replacement operation and checkup operation’ expands on how the functions are technologically accomplished beyond being performed by generic computer systems or how they improve the computer technology itself.
Applicant argues on page 15 of remarks 2/9/2026:
“Applicants respectfully submit that claim 1 of the present application clearly recites improvements to machine learning models and/or logical structures and processes to be applied that result in particular improvements and advantages that directly result from the claimed maintenance scheduling device arrangements and methodologies. These include improvements and advantages as discussed above and in the portions of the specification of the present application as quoted at pages 22-23 of the response filed on September 10, 2025 in this application.
“…Examiner is respectfully requested to explain on the record why the above-quoted Ex parte Desjardins Appeals Review Panel decision as well as the above-quoted Recentive Analytics, Inc. decision do not apply in this case.”
Examiner considers Applicant’s traverse but maintains the assertion. Regarding Applicant’s quote from the Ex parte Desjardins decision, “We are persuaded that constitutes an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates”; and Applicant’s quote from Recentive Analytics, Inc., “‘patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments’ are insufficient for patent eligibility, unless ‘improvements to the machine learning models to be applied’ are disclosed”, Examiner does not find these analogous to the present invention. Machine learning is central to these analyses and does not appear to be present in Applicant’s claims or specification.
Applicant argues on page 16 of remarks 2/9/2026:
“If these rejections are maintained, the Examiner is requested to clarify in the next Office
Communication why these above-quoted directives from the August 4, 2025 USPTO Memorandum do not apply in this case.”
Examiner submits the following clarification: Applicant’s quote from the memorandum, “"[t]his limitation requires specific mathematical calculations by referring to the mathematical calculations by name, i.e., a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm, and therefore recites a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea (emphasis added)", is a reference to USPTO Example 47 regarding a trained artificial neural network. The memo admits that the claims recite an abstract idea, contrasting them with training a neural network in USPTO Example 39. Regardless, Examiner does not find either of these examples analogous to the present invention. Similar to previously, machine learning, in this case more specifically training neural networks, is central to these analyses and does not appear to be present in Applicant’s claims or specification.
Step 2B:
Applicant argues on page 16 of remarks 2/9/2026:
“Applicant believes that in Step 2A Prong 2 and/or Step 2B it should be determined ‘Yes’, i.e., the additional elements in the claims as amended would integrate the judicial exception into practical application and/or the claims as amended would include elements significantly more than the judicial exception.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as amended still do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract idea and link use of abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), in this case, using computing devices to schedule maintenance on industrial machines (also see Applicant specification ¶’s [0004, 0005]). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of gathering information about machines and maintenance operations, calculating time intervals, scheduling maintenance, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions, in this case a computer program, to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, these functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i).
Accordingly, the previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101 will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 103:
Applicant argues on page 19 of remarks 2/9/2026:
“Even assuming, strictly arguendo, as the Examiner argues, that Stake teaches distinctions between preventive, or regularly scheduled mandatory maintenance operations, and predictive, or non-regular, non-mandatory maintenance operations, Applicant respectfully submits that there is a significant leap from the teaching [by Stake] to the features ‘determine/determining ... whether or not each of the additional operations is executable within a remaining operation time calculated by subtracting the operation time required for the maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items from an overall operation time set for the maintenance date on which maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items is performed...; and formulate/formulating a maintenance schedule that includes, in addition to the maintenance, every additional operation determined to be executable out of the additional operations’ in claims 1 and 7 of the present application.”
Examiner considers Applicant’s argument but respectfully finds it unpersuasive. The claim limitation quoted by Applicant above is not taught by Stake; rather, by primary reference Maenishi at ¶s [0068] and [0070]. Examiner’s rationale for combining / modifying Maenishi with Stake is that both are analogous art of industrial maintenance scheduling and that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have modified Maenishi’s maintenance work support system to have included Stake’s teachings around predictive and preventative maintenance for industrial robots. The benefit of these additional features would have augmented the maintenance work support system to include strategic and efficient preventative maintenance plans specifically pertaining to robot assets to increase productivity and reduce costs (Stake ¶ [0005, 0006]).
Applicant argues on page 20 of remarks 2/9/2026:
“…Applicant has opted to further amend independent claim 1 in this paper to now more precisely recite that ‘the maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items includes at least periodic component replacement operation and checkup operation.’ Applicant respectfully submits that neither Maenishi nor Stake, whether taken separately or in the Office Action's applied combinations, describes or even suggests any periodic component replacement operation as part of maintenance operation.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Additional support for the claim limitations as amended can be found at Maenishi ¶ [0033]: “Component mounting devices M4 and M5 above described, conveyor 12a of the board transfer mechanism, nozzle holder 19a of mount head 19 and nozzle 20 attached to nozzle holder 19a constituting component mounting mechanism 17, and power Supply 24 are maintenance targets on which a maintenance work Such as inspecting or cleaning is regularly executed”; and at Fig. 6 showing recommended maintenance for nozzle holder: oiling [EN: replacement] every 560 hours and inspecting [EN: checkup] every 18000 hours.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC 103 is maintained in view of the amendments. See 103 section below for additional details on references cited for the amended claims.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-6 are directed to a device or machine which is a statutory category.
Claims 7-9 are directed to a method or process which is a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One: The claims recite, describe, or set forth a judicial exception of an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Specifically, the claims recite, describe or set forth concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, and judgement), as well as mitigating risk, including: “acquire mandatory maintenance items related to an industrial machine, a maintenance date on which maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items is performed, and an operation time required for the maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items, the maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items includes at least periodic component replacement operation and checkup operation”, “acquire maintenance operation information including at least checkup items related to industrial machines including a robot that are each expected to exceed a checkup interval period before or on the maintenance date and an operation time required for each of additional operations necessary for the checkup items”, “set a priority ranking for the additional operation according to a predetermined priority ranking setting method based on the overdue time”, “determine, according to a predetermined method based on the priority ranking for the additional operations necessary for checkup, whether or not each of the additional operations is executable within a remaining operation time calculated by subtracting the operation time required for the maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items from an overall operation time set for the maintenance date”, and “formulate a maintenance schedule that includes, in addition to the maintenance, every additional operation determined to be executable by the addition feasibility determination unit out of the additional operations”. Gathering maintenance data and optimally scheduling human maintenance on industrial assets to preserve lifespan and maximize production falls within mitigating risk as it pertains to fundamental economic principles or practices under the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II); as well as concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, and judgement) under the abstract grouping of Mental Processes1 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III). Examiner also points to MPEP2106.04(a)(2) III C finding that computer aided processes such as: 1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer, 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment, 3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process can still be considered to recite a mental process. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Independent claims 1, 7 recite the following additional elements: “maintenance scheduling device”, “memory”, “processor”, and “computer”. The functions of these additional elements include controlling the scheduling device; acquire information about industrial machines including maintenance items, dates, and operation times; acquire maintenance operation information for mandatory maintenance items as well as items not included in the mandatory checkup cycle; determine executability of the additional operations based on remaining downtime during the checkups; and generating a schedule accordingly. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of gathering information about machines and maintenance operations, calculating time intervals, scheduling maintenance, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, these functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: According to MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), considering whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite the technological details of how the actual technological solution to the actual technological problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover an entrepreneurial and thus abstract solution to an entrepreneurial problem with no technological details on how the technological result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-9 do not appear to provide any additional computer-based elements, let alone for such additional computer-based elements to integrate the abstract idea into practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Further, dependent claims 2-6, 8-9 merely incorporate the additional elements recited in claims 1, 7 along with further narrowing of the abstract idea of claims 1, 7 along with their execution of the abstract idea. Specifically, the dependent claims narrow the “maintenance scheduling device”, “memory”, “processor”, and “computer” to capabilities such as acquire, set, determine, calculate, and formulate various forms of data such as checkup interval period-overdue times, times elapsed, priority rankings, executable statuses, operation times, schedules, operations, preferences, numbers of engineers, etc. which, when evaluated per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) represent mere invocation of computers to perform existing processes. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually and in combination fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) and for the same reasons they also fail to provide significantly more (Step 2B). Thus, claims 1-9 are reasoned to be patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will contain bracketed comments preceded by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be placed to further explain a rejection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Maenishi US 20170004429 A1, hereinafter Maenishi in view of
Stake et al. US 20060206289 A1, hereinafter Stake. As per,
Regarding Claims 1, 7: Maenishi teaches:
(Claim 1) A maintenance scheduling device comprising: a memory configured to store a program for controlling the maintenance scheduling device; and a processor, by executing the program, configured to:
(Claim 7) A maintenance scheduling method for formulating a maintenance schedule of industrial machines [..], the maintenance scheduling method by a computer comprising a memory
configured to store a program for implementing the maintenance scheduling method and a processor configured to execute the program, comprising:
(Maenishi ¶ [0026]: …Maintenance work support apparatus 5 [EN: maintenance scheduling device] has a function of supporting a maintenance work executed on a maintenance target in component mounting system 1, and functions as a production activity support system, which supports production activities including the maintenance work)
acquire / acquiring mandatory maintenance items related to an industrial machine, a maintenance date on which maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items is performed, and an operation time required for the maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items, the maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items includes at least periodic component replacement operation and checkup operation (Maenishi ¶ [0036]: Maintenance work support apparatus 5 includes production information acquirer 51…. ¶ [0038]: Facility position information 32 and maintenance target 33 [EN: industrial machine] will be described with reference to FIG. 4. As shown in FIG. 4, maintenance target 33 includes “line NO” 33a, “unit ID” 33b, “facility ID” 33c, “maintenance portion” 33d [EN: maintenance item], and “work classification” 33e. ¶ [0041]: FIG. 5 shows maintenance work content 34. Here, “work classification” 34b, “work time” 34c [EN: operation time] and “work content” 34d are defined for each “maintenance portion” 34a. ¶ [0061]: …Initially, the maintenance execution date and time when the maintenance work is executed, is set by setting unit 53 by obtaining maintenance condition data 43 (ST21)…. ¶ [0033]: Component mounting devices M4 and M5 above described, conveyor 12a of the board transfer mechanism, nozzle holder 19a of mount head 19 and nozzle 20 attached to nozzle holder 19a constituting component mounting mechanism 17, and power Supply 24 are maintenance targets on which a maintenance work Such as inspecting or cleaning is regularly executed. [Also see Fig. 6 showing recommended maintenance for nozzle holder: oiling [EN: replacement] every 560 hours and inspecting [EN: checkup] every 18000 hours);
acquire / acquiring maintenance operation information including at least checkup items related to industrial machines [..] that are each expected to exceed a checkup interval period before or on the maintenance date [..] and an operation time required for each of additional operations necessary for the checkup items (Maenishi ¶ [0036]: Maintenance work support apparatus 5 includes production information acquirer 51 [EN: maintenance operation information acquisition unit]…. ¶ [0041]: FIG. 5 shows maintenance work content 34 [EN: checkup items]. Here, “work classification” 34b, “work time” 34c [EN: operation time] and “work content” 34d are defined for each “maintenance portion” 34a. ¶ [0043]: …the deadline [EN: maintenance date] is defined by a deadline (hereinafter, referred to as a use limit time) of a date and time by which execution of the maintenance work is necessary after starting the use of the item of the maintenance target…. For example, the item of “nozzle holder 38a shows “140 H'. This means, that it is necessary to execute the maintenance work on the item within a use time [EN: checkup interval period] of 140 H from a point of time when the previous maintenance work is executed, that is, by the time when 140 hours as a use time in an actual operation state have elapsed);
set / setting a priority ranking for the additional operation according to a predetermined priority ranking setting method based on the overdue time (Maenishi ¶ [0045]: That is, priority table information 35 defines maintenance priority 37 that classifies the priority level at which execution of the maintenance work is necessary based on the association of recommended maintenance deadline 36 with the use count or use time of the maintenance target. As recommended maintenance deadline 36 used herein, any one of the use time indicating an elapsed operation time),
determine (claim 1 only), according to a predetermined method based on the priority ranking for the additional operations necessary for checkup (claim 1 only), whether or not each of the additional operations is executable within a remaining operation time calculated by subtracting the operation time required for the maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items from an overall operation time set for the maintenance date on which maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items is performed, and, upon determining that the additional operation is executable, continue the determination using an updated remaining operation time calculated by subtracting the operation time required for the additional operation necessary for checkup determined to be executable from the previously calculated remaining operation time (Maenishi ¶ [0068]: …grouping is performed such that the total (necessary time) of “work times” 45a [EN: item operation times] of the respective items given by maintenance work content 34 shown in FIG. 5 does not exceed “work time” 43b [EN: overall operation time] (allowable time) given by maintenance condition data 43 shown in FIG. 8, and executability in the producing site (for example, a factory) is guaranteed. ¶ [0070]: That is, the operator determines the maintenance condition from the production plan, and creates the maintenance work plan [predetermined method] such that the maintenance work can be executed in a time zone when the component mounting lines are not operated); and
formulate / formulating a maintenance schedule that includes, in addition to the maintenance, every additional operation determined to be executable out of the additional operations (Maenishi ¶ [0067]: …maintenance work plan creation unit 57 [EN: maintenance schedule formulation unit] creates the maintenance work plan [EN: maintenance schedule] at the maintenance execution date and time on the work plan. Accordingly, maintenance work plan table 45 shown in FIG. 9 is created. In the example shown in FIG. 9, six items [EN: executable additional operations] among seven items of target item 46a to target item 46g listed up in maintenance priority schedule data 44 shown in FIG. 7 are grouped into three groups (groups 45(1), 45(2) and 45(3)), and the work plan for executing the maintenance work is drafted. [Also see Fig. 9 and related text]).
Although Maenishi teaches a system and method for scheduling maintenance on industrial machines, Maenishi does not specify the industrial machines to include robots, nor additional maintenance operations not included in the mandatory maintenance items.
However, Stake in analogous art of industrial maintenance scheduling teaches or suggests:
a system and method for preventative maintenance for industrial robots: (Stake ¶ [0069]: Each of the facilities 12 and 14 includes one or more assets 12a to 12n for facility 12 and 14a to 14n for facility 14. An asset as that term is used herein is an apparatus that performs work and thus has value to an enterprise…. Assets 12a to 12n and 14a to 14n may, for example, be the industrial robots, stamps, presses, and other machines used in the production of those parts. ¶ [0079] In accordance with the present invention all aspects from all of the life cycle phases of an asset, which in the embodiment described herein are, without limitation, industrial robots but can be any asset, can be viewed from one place. These aspects include but are not limited to asset documentation, status reporting, management, maintenance management including monitoring for both predictive and preventative maintenance, alarms, events and notification, and reporting on the effectiveness and productivity), and
acquire maintenance operation information [..] which is not included in the mandatory maintenance items related to the industrial machine, the checkup interval period-overdue time (See Stake distinctions between preventative [EN: regularly scheduled, mandatory] maintenance and predictive [EN: non-mandatory] maintenance operations: ¶ [0041]: analyze at said remote location said transferred monitored data and provide a prediction of needed maintenance on each of the plurality of robots. ¶ [0055]: FIG. 13a is a flowchart relating to the predictive maintenance function of the asset condition report and FIGS. 13b and 13c are screenshots for that function. ¶ [0079]: maintenance management including monitoring for both predictive and preventative maintenance. ¶ [0114]: The aspect view 54 of this figure shows in the column headed "AM Name" the asset monitors named "Preventative Maintenance" and "Predictive Maintenance." The column headed "Condition" has in it for the Preventative Maintenance AM that the asset known as "Virtual-Stud" has "Preventative Maintenance Due" and for the Predictive Maintenance AM that the "Virtual-Stud" asset has a "Calibrated Current Deviation.")
Stake and Maenishi are found as analogous art of industrial maintenance scheduling. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Maenishi’s maintenance work support system to have included Stake’s teachings around predictive and preventative maintenance for industrial robots. The benefit of these additional features would have augmented the maintenance work support system to include strategic and efficient preventative maintenance plans specifically pertaining to robot assets to increase productivity and reduce costs (Stake ¶ [0005, 0006]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Maenishi in view of Stake (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of industrial maintenance scheduling. In such combination each element would have merely performed same organizational and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Maenishi in view of Stake above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 6: Maenishi / Stake teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Maenishi further teaches:
wherein the overall operation time for the maintenance date and the operation time required for each additional operation necessary for the checkup items are set depending on the number of maintenance engineers who work simultaneously (see Maenishi Figs. 8A and 8B showing three operators [engineers] working in parallel not exceeding 60 minutes of overall operation time, which is the operation time allotted showed in Figs. 13A and 13B from 19:00 to 20:00 between production shifts. The simultaneous work is further broken down into additional operations in three groups performed by the operators shown in Fig. 9. Maenishi ¶ [0060]: That is, in Pattern 1 shown in FIG. 8A, operators 43a (here, three people of OO, OX and XX) who can execute the maintenance work in component mounting system 1, and “work time' 43b that each of these operators can spend in order to execute the maintenance work, are previously defined. Here, all the operators of OO, OX, and XX can spend 60 minutes executing the maintenance work. In Pattern 2 shown in FIG. 8B, component mounting lines L1 and L2 as operating target facilities 43c to which the respective operators of operators 43a can be assigned, are defined).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 2-3, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Maenishi / Stake as applied above, in further view of
Masahiro WO 2019159277 A1, hereinafter Masahiro. As per,
Regarding claims 2, 8: Maenishi / Stake teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 7 above.
Maenishi further teaches:
[..]
the processor is further configured to:
determine, for each of the additional operations necessary for checkup and in the order of the priority ranking, whether or not the additional operation necessary for checkup is executable within the remaining operation time calculated by subtracting the operation time required for the maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items from the overall operation time (Maenishi ¶ [0068]: …grouping is performed such that the total (necessary time) of “work times” 45a [EN: item operation times] of the respective items given by maintenance work content 34 shown in FIG. 5 does not exceed “work time” 43b [EN: overall operation time] (allowable time) given by maintenance condition data 43 shown in FIG. 8, and executability in the producing site (for example, a factory) is guaranteed [EN: determined executable]), and
[..]
formulate a maintenance schedule that includes, in addition to the maintenance, every additional operation necessary for checkup determined to be executable out of the additional operations, once any of the additional operations necessary for checkup is determined to be not executable (Maenishi ¶ [0067]: …maintenance work plan creation unit 57 [EN: maintenance schedule formulation unit] creates the maintenance work plan [EN: maintenance schedule] at the maintenance execution date and time on the work plan. Accordingly, maintenance work plan table 45 shown in FIG. 9 is created. In the example shown in FIG. 9, six items [EN: executable additional operations] among seven items [EN: the seventh of which is determined not executable] of target item 46a to target item 46g listed up in maintenance priority schedule data 44 shown in FIG. 7 are grouped into three groups (groups 45(1), 45(2) and 45(3)), and the work plan for executing the maintenance work is drafted. [Also see Fig. 9 and related text])
Although Maenishi teaches a system and method for scheduling maintenance on industrial machines, Maenishi does not specifically teach updating the remaining operation time after each individual checkup operation.
However, Masahiro in analogous art of industrial maintenance scheduling teaches or suggests:
upon determining that an additional operation is executable, continue the determination using an updated remaining operation time calculated by subtracting the operation time required for the additional operation necessary for checkup determined to be executable from the previously calculated remaining operation time (Masahiro ¶ [0079]: Using this equipment list a method for selecting equipment to be worked on by a worker will be described. For example, if a worker's work time is 8 hours…. It takes 6 hours to maintain the equipment number 5. So there is still about 2 hours left after the work. Therefore, we search for equipment that can be maintained in the remaining two hours…. Equipment 2 requires 10 minutes to move, 1 hour to perform maintenance work and 1 hour and 10 minutes in total. So it is expected that the work will be completed within the remaining 2 hours).
Masahiro, Stake and Maenishi are found as analogous art of industrial maintenance scheduling. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Maenishi / Stake’s maintenance work support system to have included Masahiro’s teachings around updating remaining operation time of an asset after each individual checkup operation. The benefit of these additional features would have further increased maintenance work plan efficiency without excessive systematization (Masahiro ¶ [0010]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Maenishi in view of Stake and Masahiro (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of industrial maintenance scheduling. In such combination each element would have merely performed same organizational and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Maenishi in view of Stake and Masahiro above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding claims 3, 9: Maenishi / Stake teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 7 above.
Maenishi further teaches:
the processor is further configured to:
set a priority ranking based on the checkup interval period [..] of each of the industrial machines acquired by the maintenance operation information acquisition unit (Maenishi ¶ [0045]: That is, priority table information 35 defines maintenance priority 37 that classifies the priority level at which execution of the maintenance work is necessary based on the association of recommended maintenance deadline 36 with the use count or use time of the maintenance target. As recommended maintenance deadline 36 used herein, any one of the use time indicating an elapsed operation time),
determine, for each of the additional operations necessary for checkup and in the order of the priority ranking, whether or not the additional operation necessary for checkup is executable within the remaining operation time calculated by subtracting the operation time required for the maintenance for the mandatory maintenance items from the overall operation time (Maenishi ¶ [0068]: …grouping is performed such that the total (necessary time) of “work times” 45a [EN: item operation times] of the respective items given by maintenance work content 34 shown in FIG. 5 does not exceed “work time” 43b [EN: overall operation time] (allowable time) given by maintenance condition data 43 shown in FIG. 8, and executability in the producing site (for example, a factory) is guaranteed [EN: determined executable]),
[..]
[..]
formulate a maintenance schedule that includes, in addition to the maintenance, every additional operation necessary for checkup determined to be executable out of the additional operations, once all the additional operations necessary for checkup have been determined to be executable or not executable (Maenishi ¶ [0067]: …maintenance work plan creation unit 57 [EN: maintenance schedule formulation unit] creates the maintenance work plan [EN: maintenance schedule] at the maintenance execution date and time on the work plan. Accordingly, maintenance work plan table 45 shown in FIG. 9 is created. In the example shown in FIG. 9, six items [EN: executable additional operations] among seven items [EN: the seventh of which is determined not executable] of target item 46a to target item 46g listed up in maintenance priority schedule data 44 shown in FIG. 7 are grouped into three groups (groups 45(1), 45(2) and 45(3)), and the work plan for executing the maintenance work is drafted. [Also see Fig. 9 and related text]).
Although Maenishi teaches a system and method for scheduling maintenance on industrial machines, Maenishi does not specifically teach updating the remaining operation time after each individual checkup operation.
However, Masahiro in analogous art of industrial maintenance scheduling teaches or suggests:
upon determining that an additional operation is executable, continue the determination using an updated remaining operation time calculated by subtracting the operation time required for the additional operation necessary for checkup determined to be executable from the previously calculated remaining operation time (Masahiro ¶ [0079]: Using this equipment list a method for selecting equipment to be worked on by a worker will be described. For example, if a worker's work time is 8 hours…. It takes 6 hours to maintain the equipment number 5. So there is still about 2 hours left after the work. Therefore, we search for equipment that can be maintained in the remaining two hours…. Equipment 2 requires 10 minutes to move, 1 hour to perform maintenance work and 1 hour and 10 minutes in total. So it is expected that the work will be completed within the remaining 2 hours), and
upon determining that an additional operation is not executable, continue to determine
whether or not the additional operation necessary for checkup having the next highest priority is
executable within the updated remaining operation time (Masahiro ¶ [0079]: Using this equipment list a method for selecting equipment to be worked on by a worker will be described. For example, if a worker's work time is 8 hours…. It takes 6 hours to maintain the equipment number 5. So there is still about 2 hours left after the work. Therefore, we search for equipment [EN: next highest priority] that can be maintained in the remaining two hours…. Equipment 2 requires 10 minutes to move, 1 hour to perform maintenance work and 1 hour and 10 minutes in total. So it is expected that the work will be completed within the remaining 2 hours).
Rationales to have modified / combined Maenishi / Stake / Masahiro are above and reincorporated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Maenishi / Stake / Masahiro as applied above, in further view of
FasTrak Softworks, Inc. October 14, 2020. How to Measure Preventive Maintenance Effectiveness, hereinafter FasTrak. As per,
Regarding claim 4: Maenishi / Stake / Masahiro teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above.
Maenishi further teaches:
the priority ranking gives preference to an industrial machine having a longer checkup interval period [..] out of the industrial machines (Maenishi mid-¶ [0044]: The use time of 140 H to 100 H is classified for “maintenance priority A” 37a. The use time of 100 H to 40 H is classified for “maintenance priority B” 37b. The use time of 40 H or less is classified for “maintenance priority C” 37c. ¶ [0045]: That is, priority table information 35 defines maintenance priority 37 that classifies the priority level at which execution of the maintenance work is necessary based on the
association of recommended maintenance deadline 36 with the use count or use time of the maintenance target. As recommended maintenance deadline 36 used herein, any one of the use time indicating an elapsed operation time).
Although Maenishi teaches giving priority ranking preference to machines with longer checkup interval periods, Maenishi does not specifically teach using the elapsed time past overdue for checkup to establish priority.
However, FasTrak in analogous art of industrial maintenance scheduling teaches or suggests:
the priority ranking gives preference to an industrial machine having a longer [..] overdue time out of the industrial machines acquired by the maintenance operation information acquisition unit (FasTrak mid-blog: Scheduled Maintenance Critical Percentage (SMCP) measures the impact of late planned maintenance work. This metric quantifies the risk associated with overdue preventive maintenance work orders relative to their work order cycle, making it easier for you to prioritize which PM jobs to complete first. For example, a weekly PM work order that is 5 days late impacts an asset’s longevity and likelihood of failure more than an annual work order that is overdue by 5 days).
FasTrak, Stake, Masahiro and Maenishi are found as analogous art of industrial maintenance scheduling. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Maenishi / Stake / Masahiro’s maintenance work support system to have included FasTrak’s teachings around using elapsed time past overdue for checkup to establish maintenance priority. The benefit of these additional features would have mitigated the risks of downtime, breakdowns, and backlogs caused by late planned maintenance. The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Maenishi in view of Stake, Masahiro, and FasTrak (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of industrial maintenance scheduling. In such combination each element would have merely performed same organizational and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Maenishi in view of Stake, Masahiro, and FasTrak above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding claim 5: Maenishi / Stake / Masahiro teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above.
Although Maenishi teaches giving priority ranking preference to machines with longer checkup interval periods, Maenishi does not specifically teach using a ratio of the elapsed time past overdue for checkup to the checkup interval period to establish priority.
However, FasTrak in analogous art of industrial maintenance scheduling teaches or suggests:
the priority ranking gives preference to an industrial machine having a greater ratio of the checkup interval period-overdue time relative to the corresponding checkup interval period out of the industrial machines (FasTrak mid-blog: Scheduled Maintenance Critical Percentage (SMCP) measures the impact of late planned maintenance work. This metric quantifies the risk associated with overdue preventive maintenance work orders relative to their work order cycle, making it easier for you to prioritize which PM jobs to complete first. For example, a weekly PM work order that is 5 days late impacts an asset’s longevity and likelihood of failure more than an annual work order that is overdue by 5 days. To calculate SMCP, you must know the PM work order’s recurrence and the number of days the procedure is late. Once you have that information, you can use the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
45
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
FasTrak, Masahiro, Stake and Maenishi are found as analogous art of industrial maintenance scheduling. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Maenishi / Stake / Masahiro’s maintenance work support system to have included FasTrak’s teachings around using a ratio of the elapsed time past overdue for checkup to the checkup interval period to establish priority. The benefit of these additional features would have mitigated the risks of downtime, breakdowns, and backlogs caused by late planned maintenance. The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Maenishi in view of Stake, Masahiro, and FasTrak (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of industrial maintenance scheduling. In such combination each element would have merely performed same organizational and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Maenishi in view of Stake, Masahiro, and FasTrak above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Qiang CN 103810555 A, Scheduling method and system for regular maintenance items.
Colena; Michael Patrick US 20200074412 A1, Using constraint programming to obtain a machine maintenance schedule for maintaining machines.
Hariharan; Rajaraman et al. US 20150074011 A1, Supply chain management anomaly detection.
Miwa; Hirobumi et al. US 20090259507 A1, Working machine maintenance work management system.
Jackson; Nigel P. US 20120166249 A1, Asset management system.
Billings; Lacrecia Lynn et al. US 20190298084 A1, Temperature-controlled display case maintenance cart system.
Barker; Ricky Dale et al. US 11016468 B1, Monitoring system for use in industrial operations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REED M. BOND whose telephone number is (571) 270-0585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/REED M. BOND/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
June 15, 2026
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 June 16, 2026
1 MPEP 2106.04(a): “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible”.
Prosecution Insights