DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 12/23/2026, Applicant, on 6/23/2026, amended Claims 1, 7, 9, 12, and 18. Claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-19 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §112(b) – The rejection remains as Applicant has not addressed the clarity issue with “a memory unit”.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant states the amended limitations and that these amendments provide improvements in the existing technology by maximizing the number of maintenance tasks to be performed during a given time period, while decreasing errors, such as overlooking maintenance tasks or the qualifications needed to perform the maintenance tasks, and that the scheduler device dynamically integrates real-time data from multiple networked external sources in a coordinated loop that is impossible to perform manually, citing Enfish and McRO, and finally stating that a human could not perform these real-time networked queries. Examiner disagrees as the claims are directed at abstract processes of a “Mental Process” and a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”, as the claims recite limitations for the purposes of scheduling technicians, a form of Managing Human Behaviors through observations, evaluations, and judgments, which is clearly both a Mental Process and Method of Organizing Activity as per the rejection below, and this is a mere allegation of eligibility under 101. A human mind can generate a list of maintenance tasks to be perform on a piece of production equipment and select a specified period of time in which maintenance on a piece of production equipment is performed by making a list of necessary tasks and thinking when to repair a piece of equipment, for example. Further, the claims are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies such as a processor, scheduler device/computer, memory unit , etc. to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It” for the purpose of matching a vehicle and a user. There is no improvement to a technology or any technological process, as the Applicant has not even identified what technology this would be, and the processor, memory units, and other technologies utilized are not improved. This is “Applying It”, similar to Alice, on a generic computing system, and any purported improvement is part of the abstraction and thus this is not significantly more nor practically integrated.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 4/7/2026 and 8/13/2026 have been acknowledged.
The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copies of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-17, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claims 1 and 7 recite the limitations of “comprises one or more processors and a memory unit unit configured to store and execute instructions”, and then later in the claim states “saving the recommended maintenance schedule to a memory unit of the scheduler device.” It is unclear if this is the same memory unit or different, and thus the Claims are indefinite. For examination purposes the terms will be considered the same memory unit. The dependent Claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims they rely on and thus are similarly rejected.
.
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.
Alice – Claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 7 are directed at limitations for receiving/providing and verifying user credentials to log in (Collecting Information, an observation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), selecting a specified period of time in which maintenance on a piece of production equipment is to be performed (Collecting Information, an observation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating a list of maintenance tasks due to be performed on the piece of the production equipment over the specified time period, wherein the maintenance tasks include maintenance tasks automatically populated by the scheduler device and additional maintenance tasks input by a user (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), evaluating each of the maintenance tasks to determine technician skills and qualifications required to perform each maintenance task (Collecting Information, an observation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), to determine an availability of one or more technicians having the required skills and qualifications for each of the maintenance tasks to be performed during the specified time period (Collecting and Analyzing the Information, an observation and evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining which parts are required for each of the maintenance tasks to be performed during the specified time period (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), to determine an availability of the parts required for each of the maintenance tasks to be performed during the specified time period (Collecting and Analyzing the Information, an observation and evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining a production schedule for the specified time period by considering a current workload and predicting work-in-progress (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating a recommended maintenance schedule by executing a computerized optimization algorithm that processes multivariable inputs from steps (iii) – (viii), to simultaneously minimize production schedule disruption and maximize maintenance task completion during the specified time period, wherein the recommended maintenance schedule includes a recommended time to perform each maintenance task and a recommended technician to perform each maintenance task (Analyzing and Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), saving the recommended maintenance schedule to a memory unit of the scheduler device (Transmitting and Storing the Information, a judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), displaying the recommended maintenance schedule (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), receiving an input by the user indicating acceptance or rejection of the recommended maintenance schedule (Collecting Information, an observation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and automatically generating an alternative recommended maintenance schedule by repeating an iteration of steps (ii)-(xi) upon receiving the input indicating the rejection of the recommended maintenance schedule (Analyzing, Transmitting, and Collecting Information, an observation, evaluation, and judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of scheduling technicians, which is Managing Human Behavior, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a maintenance scheduling system, a scheduler device including a user input interface and an output interface, one or more processors, memory units, scheduler device, communications network pertaining to an inventory of parts, user interface, a first, second, and third external information source on the communications network, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Organizing and Tracking information for Managing Human Behavior, i.e. scheduling technicians. For example, identifying which parts are required for each maintenance task encompasses any manager, supervisor, foreman, project manager, etc. looking at tasks and using their experience deciding what parts will be needed for a technician to perform the maintenance task, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for organizing and tracking information for Managing Human Behavior, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The system, scheduler device, processors, memory units, communication network, user interface, and plurality of external information sources are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmission steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0027] Referring to Fig. 3, a system 300 for performing the disclosed methods 100, 200 is schematically depicted. As shown, the system 300 includes a scheduler or scheduling device 310 having a user input interface 312 and a user output interface 314, such as a GUI. The scheduler 310 may further comprise one or more processors, transmitters, antennas and memory components. The scheduler 310 is in communication with one or more external information hubs or other devices on a communications network 317. The one or more other devices on the communications network 317 are structured to hold human resource information 320 pertaining to the qualifications of each maintenance employed maintenance technician as well as vacation and sick/personal day schedules for each of said technicians.”
Which states that any type of device with a user input/output and GUI can be used, such as any personal computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, etc., to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmission steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the system, device, etc., nor the receiving and transmission steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-16 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice Analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
New Claims 18-19 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice Analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-19 have overcome the prior art and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and any other rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Ming (U.S. Publication No. 2015/028,6979), Wilber (U.S. Publication No. 2016/028,2859), and Monovich (U.S. Publication No. 2020/021,0937). Ming, a system and method for job loading, teaches specifying a time period, determining technician skills required to perform each maintenance task, determining availability of each technician during the specified time period and certifications for each available technician, determining parts required for each maintenance task and a parts inventory, determining a production schedule for the specified time period, generating a recommended maintenance schedule which minimizes production impact during the specified time period based on the determined maintenance tasks, technician availability and certifications and parts availability, wherein the recommended maintenance schedule includes a recommended time to perform each maintenance task and a recommended technician to perform each maintenance task, determining maintenance tasks to be performed on each piece of equipment over the specified time period, it does not explicitly state production equipment being used, nor does it teach generating an alternative recommended maintenance schedule using the listed steps based upon receiving an input declining the recommended schedule. Wilber, a system and method for maintaining equipment in an industrial automation environment, teaches production equipment with maintenance of parts for high priority automation equipment to reduce losses in production, monetary value, and efficiency, service recommendations being made using the work processes, parts, and availability, and facility information with work areas and work lines, but does not explicitly teach generating an alternative recommended maintenance schedule using the listed steps based upon receiving an input declining the recommended schedule. Monovich, a system and method for fixing a schedule using a remote optimization engine, teaches to receive, from the network interface, a set of requests for services, schedule a set of tasks based on scheduling constraints, wherein each task is expected to be completed within a period of time from when a corresponding request was received, to determine a common cause why at least two requests were not scheduled with tasks expected to be completed within the period of time, wherein the common cause is associated with at least one of the scheduling constraints, enable reducing the number of future unscheduled tasks based on the determination, changing the task time, and creating an alternative schedule based on different inputs, but not the declination of a recommended schedule. None of the above prior art explicitly teaches this use generation of an alternative recommended maintenance schedule based on repeating all of the steps upon receiving an input declining the recommended maintenance schedule, along with the other limitations state limitations, which Applicant points out on pgs. 3 and 4 of the remarks of 8/27/2025, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-19 are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200210937 A1
Monovich; Amit et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FIXING SCHEDULE USING A REMOTE OPTIMIZATION ENGINE
US 20160282859 A1
Wilber; Andrew et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MAINTAINING EQUIPMENT IN AN INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION ENVIRONMENT
US 20150286979 A1
Ming; Garrett Russell et al.
JOB LOADER
US 20230041255 A1
Matsuoka; Yoky et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USER INTERFACES FOR ENABLING TASK DELEGATION CONTROLS
US 20220383269 A1
Suranov; Oleksii
MANAGING TECHNICIAN LOGISTICS
US 20220292999 A1
Kratzer; Matthew et al.
REAL TIME TRAINING
US 20220130272 A1
FOROUGHI; Ehsan et al.
JUST-IN-TIME TRAINING SYSTEM AND METHOD
US 20210256455 A1
Suranov; Oleksii
Devices, Systems and Methods for Managing Technician Logistics
US 20200401983 A1
MEYERZON; Dmitriy et al.
EXTRACTING AND SURFACING USER WORK ATTRIBUTES FROM DATA SOURCES
US 20200175456 A1
DAR MOUSA; Nosaiba et al.
COGNITIVE FRAMEWORK FOR DYNAMIC EMPLOYEE/RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN A MANUFACTURING ENVIRONMENT
US 20200151676 A1
Mitchell; Graeme
ISSUE TRACKING AND RECTIFICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
US 20190147388 A1
Alexander; Mike
Relevance Management System
US 20190130330 A1
Slagle; Ian et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF HIGHLY COMPLEX PROJECTS
US 20180082266 A1
SAFAEI; Nima
COMBINED AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE ROUTING AND MAINTENANCE TASK SCHEDULING
US 20140330605 A1
CONNOLLY; PAUL et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING AND SCHEDULING A WORKFORCE
US 20140278653 A1
COCANOUGHER; Charles D. et al.
Method And System For Optimizing Field Service Appoint Scheduling
US 20090187449 A1
van Tulder; Paul A. et al.
System and method for managing unscheduled maintenance and repair decisions
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 9/12/2026
