DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for reconsideration of application 18/290,043 (11/09/23) filed on 8/12/25.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites, “wherein asset attributes and asset relationships for assisting in determining the at least one asset model are retrieved from at least one of the database or the sensor.”
This should be -- wherein asset attributes and asset relationships for assisting in determining the at least one asset model are retrieved from at least one of the database or the at least one sensor. – or something similar.
Consistent terminology and/ or singular/plural problem.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1 - 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1, is/are directed to a process (i.e., method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves receiving first information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters; capturing second information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters; implementing heuristics and the first and second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters for a defined period of time; implementing at least one prioritization algorithm to prioritize across the determined at least one asset model to determine a priority for implementing the best set of candidate interventions; and
scheduling and performing the best set of candidate interventions based on the determined priority, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (managing asset intervention); commercial or legal interactions (managing asset intervention); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (“receiving”; “capturing”; “implementing heuristics and the first and second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose”; “implementing at least one prioritization algorithm to prioritize across the determined at least one asset model to determine”; “scheduling and performing”).
The mere nominal recitation of technology (e.g., “using at least one sensor”) does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to receiving first information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters; capturing second information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters; implementing heuristics and the first and second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters for a defined period of time; implementing at least one prioritization algorithm to prioritize across the determined at least one asset model to determine a priority for implementing the best set of candidate interventions; and scheduling and performing the best set of candidate interventions based on the determined priority.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “using at least one sensor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually receiving first information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters; capturing second information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters; implementing heuristics and the first and second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters for a defined period of time; implementing at least one prioritization algorithm to prioritize across the determined at least one asset model to determine a priority for implementing the best set of candidate interventions; and scheduling and performing the best set of candidate interventions based on the determined priority.
The mere nominal recitation of technology (e.g., “using at least one sensor”) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not recite the combination of additional elements. The claim(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a tool to perform the generic functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “capturing”; “implementing heuristics and the first and second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose”; “implementing at least one prioritization algorithm to prioritize across the determined at least one asset model to determine”; “scheduling and performing”, etc. step(s) as claimed). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering asset data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of “using at least one sensor”.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 11/09/23 does not provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Hunter and Dickson operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “capturing”; “implementing heuristics and the first and second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose”; “implementing at least one prioritization algorithm to prioritize across the determined at least one asset model to determine”; “scheduling and performing”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “capturing”; “implementing heuristics and the first and second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose”; “implementing at least one prioritization algorithm to prioritize across the determined at least one asset model to determine”; “scheduling and performing”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 - 8 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 2, although the claim recites “via a graphical user interface (GUI)”, the component is being used as a tool. Furthermore, the language is considered nominally or tangentially related since the invention is not from the perspective of a particular machine least of all one that includes the “graphical user interface (GUI)”.
With respect to claim 3, although the claim recites “from at least one of a database or the at least one sensor”. The language is considered nominally or tangentially related since the invention is not from the perspective of a particular machine least of all one that includes the “database”. Furthermore, the optional/ conditional language suggests that only one of the “database” or “at least one sensor” is required. As notated the claimed invention silent regarding who/ what is performing the positively recited steps or acts. The “at least one of a database or the at least one sensor” is merely interacting with the entity (unknown, unclaimed) for data receipt/transmission.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent apparatus claim 9 and independent system claim 16 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claims. The components (e.g., “processor”, “memory”) described in independent apparatus claim 9 and the components (e.g., “a database”, “an input device”, “an output device”, “at least one sensor”, “an apparatus ….., comprising: a processor; and memory”), add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the product (apparatus; system) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10 - 15 and 17 - 21 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 11, although the claim recites “a database” and “at least one of the database or the at least one sensor”, these components are considered nominally or tangentially related. Although the “database” is a component of the claimed “apparatus”, it is not required to be used. The “at least one sensor” is not a component of the claimed “apparatus” and is not required to be used.
With respect to claim 17, although the claim recites “the input device comprises a graphical user interface (GUI)” and “via at least one of the GUI”. The particular type of “input device” (i.e., “graphical user interface (GUI)”) is interpreted similar to the “input device” of claim 16 as merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 18, although the claim recites “at least one of the database or the sensor”, the components are considered nominally or tangentially related. Although the “database” and “sensor” are components of the claimed “system”, they are not required to be used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1 - 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter, WO 2019/119042 in view of Dickson, US Pub. No. 2023/0306573.
Re Claim 1: Hunter discloses a method for managing asset intervention, comprising:
receiving first information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters (Hunter, pg. 3, lines 32 - 35; pg. 4, lines 29 - 33; pg. 5, lines 5 - 34; pg. 7, lines 22 - 25; pg. 8, lines 15 - 19; pg. 8, line 28+ - pg. 9, line 21; pg. 12, lines 4 - 8; pg. 12, line 17+ - pg. 13, line 10; pg. 14, line 36+ - pg. 15, line 2; pg. 18, line 31+ - pg. 19, line 17);
implementing heuristics and the first information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters for a defined period of time (Hunter, pg. 4, lines 9 - 11; pg. 6, lines 5 - 20; pg. 7, lines 34 - 36; pg. 9, line 27+ - pg. 10, line 5; pg. 11, line 21 - 23; pg. 13, lines 16 - 31; pg. 29, lines 12 - 18; pg. 29, line 30+ - pg. 30, line 2; pg. 36, line 19+ - pg. 37, line 18; pg. 59, lines 28 - 32, See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. §2111.04 “intended use/result” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention.);
implementing at least one prioritization algorithm to prioritize across the determined at least one asset model to determine a priority for implementing the best set of candidate interventions (Hunter, pg. 6, lines 11 - 20; pg. 9, line 27+ - pg. 10, line 5; pg. 13, lines 16 - 31; pg. 34, line 28+-pg. 38, line 4; pg. 35, lines 22 - 24; pg. 35, line 30+ - pg. 37, line 18, See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. §2111.04 “intended use/result” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention.); and
scheduling and performing the best set of candidate interventions based on the determined priority (Hunter, pg. 6, lines 11 - 20; pg. 9, line 27+ - pg. 10, line 5; pg. 13, lines 16 - 31; pg. 34, line 28+-pg. 38, line 4; pg. 35, lines 22 - 24; pg. 35, line 30+ - pg. 37, line 18).
Hunter fails to explicitly disclose:
capturing, using at least one sensor, second information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters;
Although Hunter discloses implementing heuristics and the first information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters for a defined period of time. Hunter fails to explicitly disclose wherein implementing further includes the second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters for a defined period of time;
Dickson discloses:
capturing, using at least one sensor, second information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters (Dickson, abstract, [0003] [0021] [0024]);
wherein implementing further includes the second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters for a defined period of time (Dickson, abstract, [0003] [0004] [0021] [0024], See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. §2111.04 “intended use/result” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Hunter by adopting the teachings Dickson to provide capturing, using at least one sensor, second information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters; and implementing heuristics and the first and second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters for a defined period of time.
One would have been motivated to increase accuracy, convenience and flexibility.
Re Claim 9: Hunter discloses an apparatus for managing asset intervention, comprising:
a processor (Hunter, pg. 14, lines 26 - 29; pg. 18, lines 1 - 9; pg. 48, line 18+ - pg. 49, line 6; pg. 49, lines 13 - 22); and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having stored therein at least one of programs or instructions executable by the processor to configure the apparatus to (Hunter, pg. 14, lines 26 - 30; pg. 18, lines 1 - 22; pg.18, line 31+ - pg. 19, line 17; pg. 48, lines 11 - 17; pg. 49, lines 13 - 22):
receive information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters (Hunter, pg. 3, lines 32 - 35; pg. 4, lines 29 - 33; pg. 5, lines 5 - 34; pg. 7, lines 22 - 25; pg. 8, lines 15 - 19; pg. 8, line 28+ - pg. 9, line 21; pg. 12, lines 4 - 8; pg. 12, line 17+ - pg. 13, line 10; pg. 14, line 36+ - pg. 15, line 2; pg. 18, line 31+ - pg. 19, line 17);
implement heuristics and the first information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for a defined period of time (Hunter, pg. 4, lines 9 - 11; pg. 6, lines 5 - 20; pg. 7, lines 34 - 36; pg. 9, line 27+ - pg. 10, line 5; pg. 11, line 21 - 23; pg. 13, lines 16 - 31; pg. 29, lines 12 - 18; pg. 29, line 30+ - pg. 30, line 2; pg. 36, line 19+ - pg. 37, line 18; pg. 59, lines 28 - 32, See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. §2111.04 “intended use/result” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention.);
implement at least one prioritization algorithm to prioritize across the determined at least one asset model to determine a priority for implementing the best set of candidate interventions (Hunter, pg. 6, lines 11 - 20; pg. 9, line 27+ - pg. 10, line 5; pg. 13, lines 16 - 31; pg. 34, line 28+-pg. 38, line 4; pg. 35, lines 22 - 24; pg. 35, line 30+ - pg. 37, line 18, See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. §2111.04 “intended use/result” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention.); and
schedule and perform the best set of candidate interventions based on the determined priority (Hunter, pg. 6, lines 11 - 20; pg. 9, line 27+ - pg. 10, line 5; pg. 13, lines 16 - 31; pg. 34, line 28+-pg. 38, line 4; pg. 35, lines 22 - 24; pg. 35, line 30+ - pg. 37, line 18).
Hunter fails to explicitly disclose:
capture, using at least one sensor, second information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters;
Although Hunter discloses implement heuristics and the first information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for a defined period of time; Hunter fails to explicitly disclose
wherein implement further includes the second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for a defined period of time;
Dickson discloses:
capture, using at least one sensor, second information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters (Dickson, abstract, [0003] [0021] [0024]);
wherein implement further includes the second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for a defined period of time (Dickson, abstract, [0003] [0004] [0021] [0024], See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. §2111.04 “intended use/result” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Hunter by adopting the teachings Dickson to provide capture, using at least one sensor, second information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters; and implement heuristics and the first and second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for a defined period of time.
One would have been motivated to increase accuracy, convenience and flexibility.
Re Claim 16: Hunter discloses a system for managing asset intervention, comprising:
a database for storing at least asset attributes and asset relationships (Hunter, pg. 3, lines 32 - 35; pg. 7, lines 22 - 25; pg. 18, lines 1 - 22; pg.18, line 31+ - pg. 19, line 17; pg. 30, lines 10 - 23);
an input device for enabling input to the system (Hunter, pg. 14, lines 26 - 29; pg. 30, lines 10 - 23);
an output device for outputting results of the system (Hunter, pg. 6, lines 26 - 29; pg. 10, lines 15 - 18; pg. 14, lines 1 - 4; pg. 60, lines 15 - 19); and
an apparatus for managing asset intervention (Hunter, pg. 14, lines 26 - 30, pg. 18, lines 1 - 9), comprising:
a processor (Hunter, pg. 14, lines 26 - 30; pg. 18, lines 1 - 9; pg. 48, line 18+ - pg. 49, line 6; pg. 49, lines 13 - 22); and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having stored therein at least one of programs or instructions executable by the processor to configure the apparatus to (Hunter, pg. 14, lines 26 - 30; pg. 18, lines 1 - 22; pg.18, line 31+ - pg. 19, line 17; pg. 48, lines 11 - 17; pg. 49, lines 13 - 22):
receive information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters (Hunter, pg. 3, lines 32 - 35; pg. 4, lines 29 - 33; pg. 5, lines 5 - 34; pg. 7, lines 22 - 25; pg. 8, lines 15 - 19; pg. 8, line 28+ - pg. 9, line 21; pg. 12, lines 4 - 8; pg. 12, line 17+ - pg. 13, line 10; pg. 14, line 36+ - pg. 15, line 2; pg. 18, line 31+ - pg. 19, line 17);
implement heuristics and the first information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for a defined period of time (Hunter, pg. 4, lines 9 - 11; pg. 6, lines 5 - 20; pg. 7, lines 34 - 36; pg. 9, line 27+ - pg. 10, line 5; pg. 11, line 21 - 23; pg. 13, lines 16 - 31; pg. 29, lines 12 - 18; pg. 29, line 30+ - pg. 30, line 2; pg. 36, line 19+ - pg. 37, line 18; pg. 59, lines 28 - 32, See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. §2111.04 “intended use/result” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention.);
implement at least one prioritization algorithm to prioritize across the determined at least one asset model to determine a priority for implementing the best set of candidate interventions (Hunter, pg. 6, lines 11 - 20; pg. 9, line 27+ - pg. 10, line 5; pg. 13, lines 16 - 31; pg. 34, line 28+-pg. 38, line 4; pg. 35, lines 22 - 24; pg. 35, line 30+ - pg. 37, line 18, See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. §2111.04 “intended use/result” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention.); and
schedule and perform the best set of candidate interventions based on the determined priority (Hunter, pg. 6, lines 11 - 20; pg. 9, line 27+ - pg. 10, line 5; pg. 13, lines 16 - 31; pg. 34, line 28+-pg. 38, line 4; pg. 35, lines 22 - 24; pg. 35, line 30+ - pg. 37, line 18).
Hunter fails to explicitly disclose:
at least one sensor;
capture, using the at least one sensor, second information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters;
Although Hunter discloses implement heuristics and the first information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for a defined period of time. Hunter fails to explicitly disclose wherein
implement further includes the second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for a defined period of time;
Dickson discloses:
at least one sensor (Dickson, abstract, [0003] [0021] [0024]);
capture, using the at least one sensor, second information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters (Dickson, abstract, [0003] [0021] [0024]);
wherein implement further includes the second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for a defined period of time (Dickson, abstract, [0003] [0004] [0021] [0024], See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. §2111.04 “intended use/result” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Hunter by adopting the teachings Dickson to provide at least one sensor; capture, using the at least one sensor, second information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters; and
implement heuristics and the first and second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for a defined period of time.
One would have been motivated to increase accuracy, convenience and flexibility.
Re Claim 2: Hunter in view of Dickson discloses the claimed invention supra and Hunter further discloses wherein the first information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters are received via a graphical user interface (GUI) (Hunter, pg. 3, lines 32 - 35; pg. 4, lines 29 - 33; pg. 5, lines 5 - 34; pg. 7, lines 22 - 25; pg. 8, lines 15 - 19; pg. 8, line 28+ - pg. 9, line 21; pg. 12, lines 4 - 8; pg. 12, line 17+ - pg. 13, line 10; pg. 14, lines 26 - 29; pg. 14, line 36+ - pg. 15, line 2; pg. 18, line 31+ - pg. 19, line 17; pg. 30, lines 10 - 23).
Re Claim 3: Hunter in view of Dickson discloses the claimed invention supra and Hunter further discloses wherein asset attributes and asset relationships for assisting in determining the at least one asset model are retrieved from at least one of a database or the at least one sensor (Hunter, pg. 3, lines 32 - 35; pg. 4, lines 29 - 33; pg. 5, lines 5 - 34; pg. 7, lines 22 - 25; pg. 8, lines 15 - 19; pg. 8, line 28+ - pg. 9, line 21; pg. 12, lines 4 - 8; pg. 12, line 17+ - pg. 13, line 10; pg. 14, line 36+ - pg. 15, line 2; pg. 18, lines 1 - 22; pg. 18, line 31+ - pg. 19, line 17; pg. 30, lines 10 - 23).
Re Claims 4, 12 and 19: Hunter in view of Dickson discloses the claimed invention supra and Hunter further discloses wherein the network parameters comprise at least one of a time period of interest and network constraints, including limits on any combination of intervention volume and intervention costs (Hunter, pg. 3, lines 32 - 35; pg. 4, lines 29 - 33; pg. 5, lines 5 - 34; pg. 7, lines 22 - 25; pg. 8, lines 15 - 19; pg. 8, line 28+ - pg. 9, line 21; pg. 12, lines 4 - 8; pg. 12, line 17+ - pg. 13, line 10; pg. 14, line 36+ - pg. 15, line 2; pg. 18, line 31+ - pg. 19, line 17, See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. §2111.04 “wherein” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention.).
Re Claims 5, 13 and 20: Hunter in view of Dickson discloses the claimed invention supra and Hunter further discloses wherein the at least one prioritization algorithm is limited by at least one constraint (Hunter, pg. 6, lines 5 - 20; pg. 9, line 27+ - pg. 10, line 5; pg. 13, lines 16 - 31; pg. 34, line 28+ - pg. 38, line 4; pg. 35, lines 22 - 24; pg. 35, line 30+ - pg. 37, line 18, See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. §2111.04 “wherein” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention.).
Re Claims 6 and 14: Hunter in view of Dickson discloses the claimed invention supra and Hunter further discloses wherein the best set of candidaterepairs for assets (Hunter, pg. 6, lines 11 - 20; pg. 9, line 27+ - pg. 10, line 5; pg. 13, lines 16 - 31; pg. 34, line 28+-pg. 38, line 4; pg. 35, lines 22 - 24; pg. 35, line 30+ - pg. 37, line 18, See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. §2111.04 “wherein” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention.).
Re Claim 7: Hunter in view of Dickson discloses the claimed invention supra and Hunter further discloses outputting a report including at least the determined priority for the candidate interventions (Hunter, pg. 6, lines 26 - 29; pg. 10, lines 15 - 18; pg. 14, lines 1 - 4; pg. 60, lines 15 - 19).
Re Claim 8: Hunter in view of Dickson discloses the claimed invention supra and Hunter further discloses implementing a machine learning process to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for a defined period of time (Hunter, pg. 4, lines 9 - 11; pg. 6, lines 5 - 20; pg. 7, lines 34 - 36; pg. 9, line 27+ - pg. 10, line 5; pg. 11, line 21 - 23; pg. 13, lines 16 - 31; pg. 29, lines 12 - 18; pg. 29, line 30+ - pg. 30, line 2; pg. 36, line 19+ - pg. 37, line 18; pg. 59, lines 28 - 32, See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. §2111.04 “intended use/result” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention.).
Re Claim 10: Hunter in view of Dickson discloses the claimed invention supra and Hunter further discloses
a graphical user interface (GUI) (Hunter, pg. 14, lines 26 - 29; pg. 30, lines 10 - 23)
and wherein the first information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters is received via the GUI (Hunter, pg. 3, lines 32 - 35; pg. 4, lines 29 - 33; pg. 5, lines 5 - 34; pg. 7, lines 22 - 25; pg. 8, lines 15 - 19; pg. 8, line 28+ - pg. 9, line 21; pg. 12, lines 4 - 8; pg. 12, line 17+ - pg. 13, line 10; pg. 14, lines 26 - 29; pg. 14, line 36+ - pg. 15, line 2; pg. 18, line 31+ - pg. 19, line 17; pg. 30, lines 10 - 23).
Re Claim 11: Hunter in view of Dickson discloses the claimed invention supra and Hunter further discloses
a database (Hunter, pg. 3, lines 32 - 35; pg. 7, lines 22 - 25; pg. 18, lines 1 - 22; pg.18, line 31+ - pg. 19, line 17; pg. 30, lines 10 - 23) and
wherein asset attributes and asset relationships for assisting in determining the at least one asset model are retrieved from at least one of the database or the at least one sensor (Hunter, pg. 3, lines 32 - 35; pg. 4, lines 29 - 33; pg. 5, lines 5 - 34; pg. 7, lines 22 - 25; pg. 8, lines 15 - 19; pg. 8, line 28+ - pg. 9, line 21; pg. 12, lines 4 - 8; pg. 12, line 17+ - pg. 13, line 10; pg. 14, line 36+ - pg. 15, line 2; pg. 18, lines 1 - 22; pg. 18, line 31+ - pg. 19, line 17; pg. 30, lines 10 - 23).
Re Claim 15: Hunter in view of Dickson discloses the claimed invention supra and Hunter further discloses
an output device (Hunter, pg. 6, lines 26 - 29; pg. 10, lines 15 - 18; pg. 14, lines 1 - 4; pg. 60, lines 15 - 19)
wherein the output device outputs a report including at least the determined priority for the candidate interventions (Hunter, pg. 6, lines 26 - 29; pg. 10, lines 15 - 18; pg. 14, lines 1 - 4; pg. 60, lines 15 - 19).
Re Claim 17: Hunter in view of Dickson discloses the claimed invention supra and Hunter further discloses
wherein the input device comprises a graphical user interface (GUI) (Hunter, pg. 14, lines 26 - 29; pg. 30, lines 10 - 23) and
wherein the first information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters is received via the GUI (Hunter, pg. 3, lines 32 - 35; pg. 4, lines 29 - 33; pg. 5, lines 5 - 34; pg. 7, lines 22 - 25; pg. 8, lines 15 - 19; pg. 8, line 28+ - pg. 9, line 21; pg. 12, lines 4 - 8; pg. 12, line 17+ - pg. 13, line 10; pg. 14, lines 26 - 29; pg. 14, line 36+ - pg. 15, line 2; pg. 18, line 31+ - pg. 19, line 17; pg. 30, lines 10 - 23).
Re Claim 18: Hunter in view of Dickson discloses the claimed invention supra and Hunter further discloses
wherein asset attributes and asset relationships for assisting in determining the at least one asset model are retrieved from at least one of the database or the sensor (Hunter, pg. 3, lines 32 - 35; pg. 4, lines 29 - 33; pg. 5, lines 5 - 34; pg. 7, lines 22 - 25; pg. 8, lines 15 - 19; pg. 8, line 28+ - pg. 9, line 21; pg. 12, lines 4 - 8; pg. 12, line 17+ - pg. 13, line 10; pg. 14, line 36+ - pg. 15, line 2; pg. 18, lines 1 - 22; pg. 18, line 31+ - pg. 19, line 17; pg. 30, lines 10 - 23)
Re Claim 21: Hunter in view of Dickson discloses the claimed invention supra and Hunter further discloses
wherein the best set of candidate interventions include repairs for assets (Hunter, pg. 6, lines 11 - 20; pg. 9, line 27+ - pg. 10, line 5; pg. 13, lines 16 - 31; pg. 34, line 28+-pg. 38, line 4; pg. 35, lines 22 - 24; pg. 35, line 30+ - pg. 37, line 18, See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. §2111.04 “wherein” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention.) and
a report including at least the determined priority for the candidate interventions is output from the output device (Hunter, pg. 6, lines 26 - 29; pg. 10, lines 15 - 18; pg. 14, lines 1 - 4; pg. 60, lines 15 - 19).
Response to Arguments
Objections
Please note the objections withdrawn and maintained in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1)Applicant argues the claim(s) are not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Fundamental economic principles or practices relate to the economy and commerce. The claimed invention encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices as it relates to mitigating risk (e.g., managing asset intervention).
This interpretation is consistent with the prosecution history of the instant application.
For example, para. [0036] - [0039]; [0042]; [0046] of applicant’s specification as filed 11/09/23.
The claimed invention encompasses commercial or legal interactions. The claimed invention relates to mitigating risk (e.g., managing asset intervention). Mitigating risk, in the instant scenario, pertains to agreements in the form of “legal obligations” and “business relations”.
The claimed invention encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., “receiving”; “capturing”; “implementing heuristics and the first and second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose”; “implementing at least one prioritization algorithm to prioritize across the determined at least one asset model to determine”; “scheduling and performing”).
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Mental Processes
The claimed invention is directed to mental processes. The claimed invention encompasses observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (e.g., “implementing heuristics and the first and second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters for a defined period of time; implementing at least one prioritization algorithm to prioritize across the determined at least one asset model to determine a priority for implementing the best set of candidate interventions; and
scheduling and performing the best set of candidate interventions based on the determined priority.”) which are examples of mental processes.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid. Similarly, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Although claims 1 - 21 recite some use of a computer (e.g., “using at least one sensor” in method claims 1 - 8; An “apparatus” comprising “a processor” and “memory” and “using at least one sensor” in apparatus claims 9 - 15; A “system” comprising “a database”, “input device”, “output device”, “at least one sensor”, and an “apparatus” comprising “a processor” and “memory” and “using the at least one sensor” in system claims 16 - 21), nothing forecloses applicant’s claimed invention from being performed by a human and thus applicant’s claimed invention is still directed to a mental process.
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
(2)Applicant argues the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant suggests the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it provides a technical solution to a technical problem (e.g., “That is, the Applicant's claims are directed to a technical solution for the technical problem in the relevant technology of how to most efficiently and effectively schedule interventions (e.g., repairs) for a plurality of assets.” See pg. 10 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 8/12/25.). The Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
The claims do not improve upon the computer’s capabilities/ functionality or any other technology or technical field. Applicant has not provided a technology based “solution” as applicant suggests, but instead any alleged “solution” is directed to the underlying abstract idea (i.e., mitigating risk (e.g., managing asset intervention)) as noted above.
What applicant argues as the “technical solution to a technical problem” focuses on the benefits of automation itself.
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or an equivalent of an “apply it” rationale are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (f).
The role of the device is limited to necessary data gathering and outputting (e.g., “receiving first information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters; capturing, using at least one sensor, second information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters;”).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Collecting information (e.g., “receiving first information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters; capturing, using at least one sensor, second information regarding at least one of asset parameters or network parameters;”); analyzing it (e.g., “implementing heuristics and the first and second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose, as at least one asset model, a best set of candidate interventions for the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters for a defined period of time; implementing at least one prioritization algorithm to prioritize across the determined at least one asset model to determine a priority for implementing the best set of candidate interventions; and scheduling and performing the best set of candidate interventions based on the determined priority.”); and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis merely indicates a field of use or technical environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
(3) Applicant argues the claimed invention is significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 11/09/23 does not provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Hunter and Dickson operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “capturing”; “implementing heuristics and the first and second information regarding the at least one of the asset parameters or the network parameters to determine and propose”; “implementing at least one prioritization algorithm to prioritize across the determined at least one asset model to determine”; “scheduling and performing”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “ca