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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 08/16/2026.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1-2 and 17-18 are amended and claim 20 is added as a new claim. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on 07/24/2026 have been entered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained and updated in response applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 are applied to claims 1-20 below in response to applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments: Applicant’s remarks (Remarks at pgs. 9-11) with respect to the §101 rejection of claims 1-19 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s suggestion that the claims “cannot be practically applied in the mind” and thus cannot be placed under the “Mental Process” abstract idea grouping (Remarks at pg. 10), applicant’s attention is directed to the Step 2A Prong One analysis of the §101 rejection below, which provides step-by-step analysis explaining why each step, but for the generic computing elements, set forth activities falling under the “mental processes” abstract idea groupings. Applicant has not effectively rebutted these findings. Notably, applicant’s argument fails to discuss or specifically point out any supposed errors in the findings set forth in the Step 2A Prong One analysis that provides reasons why each of the specifically addressed limitations is interpreted as setting forth or describing activity falling under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea in to a practical application “by using a specifically structured database relationships and similarity-based computer processing to evaluate a facility-maintenance working plan against actual work performance from a selected prior abnormality case, thereby improving the manner in which a computer evaluates facility-maintenance working plans using historically abnormality information and actual work performance” (Remarks at pg. 11), the Examiner first notes that the database referred to in a single instance in claim 1 does not include “specifically structured database relationships,” but instead the claimed database merely serves the routine function for which a database exists, i.e., storing/organizing a collection of information, which in this instance is “…to store a plurality of groups respectively including abnormality information about an abnormality that previously occurred,“ which lacks any explicit or inherent details requiring any specifically structured database as alleged by applicant.
In response to applicant’s suggestion that the claims “improv[e] the manner in which a computer evaluates facility-maintenance working plans using historically abnormality information and actual work performance,” the Examiner notes that neither the computer/processor nor any technology have been shown as being improved. Instead, the generic apparatus/processor at most employs generic computing elements to perform the steps of the abstract idea, and any benefit from such generic computer implementation is merely the result of using the computer as a tool to perform the step(s) rather than the sequence of steps/activities recited in the method itself and does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claim. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”) (cited in the Federal Circuit's FairWarning decision). Therefore, the additional elements in the form of generic computer implementation to perform the acquiring, acquiring, determining, calculating, selecting, detecting, or displaying merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which neither renders the problem/solution as technical nor transforms the abstract idea into eligible subject matter. See, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional elements in the form of generic computer elements and insignificant extra-solution activities have been considered, but fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Applicant further suggests that the claims are eligible under Step 2B (Remarks at pg. 11), but has not provided specific reasons supporting this assertion. Applicant’s argument fails to discuss or specifically point out any supposed errors in the findings set forth in the Step 2B analysis that provides analysis and findings to support the finding that the additional elements, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, fail to add significantly more to the claim beyond the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons above along with the reasons set forth below in the updated §101 rejection, the amendment and arguments are insufficient to overcome the §101 rejection of claims 1-20.
Response to §103 arguments: Applicant’s arguments (Remarks at pgs. 13-15) concerning the §103 rejection of claims 1-19 have been considered, but are primarily raised in support of the amendments to the claims, which are believed to be fully addressed in the new grounds of §193 rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidance set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.03), it is first noted that the claimed apparatus (claims 1-16 and 19-20), method (claim 17), and non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 18) are each directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine and process, respectively). Accordingly, claims 1-20 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping by setting forth activities that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion), such as with the aid of pen and paper. The limitations reciting the abstract idea, as set forth in independent claim 1 are identified in bold text below, whereas the additional elements are presented in plain text and are separately evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B:
at least one processor (This is an additional element evaluated under Step 2A2 and Step 2B below);
a database connection unit connected to a database that uses the at least one processor to store a plurality of groups respectively including abnormality information about an abnormality that previously occurred in a facility and an actual work performance for addressing the abnormality (The storing of groups including abnormality information, but for the generic computer implementation with a processor and database unit, could be implemented as mental activity such as via human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, including with the aid of pen/paper to write a listing of the groups. In addition, the “storing” activity is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution data gathering activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network));
a report acquirement unit that uses the at least one processor to acquire a report of an abnormality that presently occurs in the facility (The acquiring of a report, but for the generic computer implementation with a report acquirement unit, could be implemented as mental activity such as via human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, such as by observing a report. Similar to the “storing” step addressed above, the acquiring may also be considered insignificant extra-solution activity which, as noted above, is insufficient to amount to a practical application or to add significantly more);
a working plan acquirement unit that uses the at least one processor to acquire a working plan drafted or modified by an administrator for addressing the reported abnormality occurring in the facility (The acquiring of a working plan, but for the generic computer implementation with a working plan acquirement unit, could be implemented as mental activity such as via human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, such as by observing the working plan. Similar to the “storing” step addressed above, the acquiring may also be considered insignificant extra-solution activity which, as noted above, is insufficient to amount to a practical application or to add significantly more);
a similarity calculation unit that uses the at least one processor to calculate a similarity between abnormality information in the report and abnormality information included in each of the plurality of groups (The calculating of a similarity, but for the generic computer implementation with a similarity calculation unit, could be implemented as mental activity such as via human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, such as by calculating the similarity in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper);
a selection unit that uses the at least one processor to select at least one group from the plurality of groups based on a similarity calculated by the similarity calculation unit (The selection of a group, but for the generic computer implementation with a selection unit, could be implemented as mental activity such as via human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, such as by a human mentally deciding on a particular group, or by a human writing a group selection with the aid of pen and paper);
a difference detection unit that uses the at least one processor to detect a difference between the working plan and the actual work performance of the at least one group (The detecting of a difference, but for the generic computer implementation with a difference detection unit, could be implemented as mental activity such as via human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, such as by a human observing and judging a difference based on an evaluation of the working plan and actual work performance); and
a display processing unit that uses the at least one processor to conduct display processing for displaying the difference (The displaying of the difference, but for the generic computer implementation with a display processing unit, could be implemented as mental activity such as via human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, such as by writing the difference on paper with a pen. Furthermore, similar to the “storing” step addressed above, the display activity may also be considered insignificant extra-solution output activity which, as noted above, is insufficient to amount to a practical application or to add significantly more);
wherein the abnormality information in the report and the abnormality information included in each of the plurality of groups includes equipment information identifying equipment in the facility and abnormality content describing an abnormality with the identified equipment (The report information in the form of information identifying equipment and abnormality content describing an abnormality with the identified equipment, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as via human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, such as by writing the information using pen and paper).
Claims 17 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations as those set forth in claim 1, and have therefore been determined to recite the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 17, and 18 include the additional elements of at least one processor, a database connection unit connected to a database for storing, a report acquirement unit, a working plan acquirement unit, a similarity calculation unit, a selection unit, a difference detection unit, a display processing unit for conducting display processing for displaying. The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the acquiring, storing, and displaying are interpreted as an additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claims 1, 17, and 18 include the additional elements of at least one processor, a database connection unit connected to a database for storing, a report acquirement unit, a working plan acquirement unit, a similarity calculation unit, a selection unit, a difference detection unit, a display processing unit for conducting display processing for displaying, a computer, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, all of which may be implemented with a generic computer. See, e.g., Spec. at par. 21 and 90, noting for example that “The apparatus 100 may be achieved by a computer such as a PC (personal computer), a tablet computer, a smartphone, a work station, a server computer, a general-purpose computer or the like.” Accordingly, the generic computing elements merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment), similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Even if the acquiring, storing, and displaying are interpreted as an additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution data gathering or output activities, which have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 19-20 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and have been determined to recite further details/activities falling under the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping, such as by describing features that can be implemented with human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. With respect to the relevant information acquirement unit (claim 3), determination unit and judgment unit (claim 6), error output unit (claim 7), and adding unit (claims 9-16), these additional elements may be implemented via processor of a generic computer (Specification at pars. 21-25, 91, and 102), similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment), which under Step 2A2 is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and which under Step 2B is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). See also, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the dependent claims fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more to the claims beyond the abstract idea itself.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Jung (US 2015/0295803) in view of Yatabe et al. (US 2016/0291577, hereinafter “Yatabe”) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2018/0231967, hereinafter “Cohen”) in view of Holland (US Patent No. 5,399,844).
Claims 1/17/18: As per claim 1, Jung teaches an apparatus (par. 11: remote maintenance system and server), comprising:
at least one processor (pars. 149 and 367: microcomputer configured to control, maintain or monitor the facility 200′, 200″ or apparatus; executed by a computer);
a database connection unit connected to a database that uses the at least one processor to store a plurality of groups respectively including abnormality information about an abnormality that previously occurred in a facility and an actual work performance for addressing the abnormality (pars. 7, 22, 38, 137-141, 183, 202, 211-214, 217, 230, and Figs. 1A/B, 2, and 5-9: describing remote maintenance server for, inter alia, collecting/storing data for a plurality of sites/facilities and respective groups of apparatuses, including past abnormality information related thereto – e.g., remote maintenance server…receiving data to and from various external terminals or the like and a storage unit 1-5 for storing various data generated during the processing process; storage unit 1-5 may be a device for storing data received from the facility; failure information may further include a number of failures for each of the abnormal facilities; fault history information [i.e., abnormality that previously occurred]; generate fault history data; may include information on a maintenance and inspection schedule, past history, and the like of the facilities [i.e., work performance for addressing the abnormalities]; remote maintenance server 1 may include the facilities; remote maintenance server 1 may collect information on facilities provided or disposed in the control regions, respectively, to efficiently maintain, repair or manage each of the control regions; cooling tower system is used as a facility, for example, the apparatus 300′, 300″ may denote a cooling tower, a pump, a temperature sensor, and the like [wherein the apparatuses in each facility are a group, as depicted in Fig. 9]);
a report acquirement unit that uses the at least one processor to acquire a report of an abnormality that presently occurs in the facility (pars. 17, 335, and Fig. 11: remote maintenance server may include a communication unit configured to receive the status information of the facility from the facility, and a controller configured to determine whether or not the facility is abnormal based on the received status information of the facility [i.e., current status, whether abnormality is presently occurring]; transmitting information on an abnormal facility [i.e., acquire a report] that has been determined by the remote maintenance server to a service center server…based on the information on the abnormal facility [i.e., abnormality that presently occurs]);
a working plan acquirement unit that uses the at least one processor to acquire a working plan … for addressing the reported abnormality occurring in the facility (pars. 26 and 76: remote maintenance server may transmit a service registration request to the service center server based on the service provision request to allow the service center server to perform service registration based on the information on the abnormal facility [which was transmitted/reported]; remote maintenance server 1 may access a service center (specifically, service center server) (not shown) providing a service for repairing the facility to request a repair work so as to carry out repair on the specific facility. Upon receiving a request for the repair work [i.e., a working plan], the service center may carry out a work for dispatching a service technician for repair work to a control site provided with the specific facility);
a similarity calculation unit that uses the at least one processor to calculate a similarity between abnormality information in the report and abnormality information included in each of the plurality of groups (par. 232 and Figs. 2 and 9: store various status information on the facilities 200 through the local controller 100 to archive status information history for a long period of time, and allow the controller 1-4 to determine whether or not the facility is abnormal based on a variation trend of the relevant status information for a long period of time or a comparison with the relevant status information in a similar environment in the past [i.e., a calculated similarity], thereby enhancing accuracy while determining whether or not there is abnormality);
a selection unit that uses the at least one processor to select at least one group from the plurality of groups based on a similarity calculated by the similarity calculation unit (pars. 232 and 249-254 and Figs. 2 and 9: e.g., determine whether or not the facility is abnormal based on a variation trend of the relevant status information for a long period of time or a comparison with the relevant status information in a similar environment [i.e., which is a calculated similarity to other facilities and their respective groups of apparatuses]; perform a selection input for a specific site through the screen displayed with the abnormal facility to receive a list of items (or graphic objects (F1, F2)) corresponding to the facilities as illustrated in FIG. 8 from the remote maintenance server; graphic objects for a plurality of facilities may be displayed in a list format, and preferably displayed in a divided manner for each group. For an example, graphic objects corresponding to 10 indoor units in a first reading room and 10 indoor units in a second reading room may be divided according to their location, and each graphic object divided according to the location may be preferably displayed in a separate region within the screen);
a difference detection unit that uses the at least one processor to detect a difference … (par. 232 determine whether or not the facility is abnormal based on a variation trend of the relevant status information for a long period of time or a comparison with the relevant status information in a similar environment in the past); and
a display processing unit that uses the at least one processor to conduct display processing for displaying the … [output] (pars. 223, 247-249, 356, and Fig. 6-7: device for displaying a result processed by the controller 1-4, the display unit 1-2 may display the status information (current temperature, humidity, operation mode, etc.) of the facility received from the facility).
Jung does not explicitly teach:
a working plan drafted or modified by an administrator;
difference between the working plan and the actual work performance of the at least one group; and displaying the difference;
wherein the abnormality information in the report and the abnormality information included in each of the plurality of groups includes equipment information identifying equipment in the facility and abnormality content describing an abnormality with the identified equipment.
Yatabe teaches::
a working plan drafted or modified by an administrator (pars. 78, 98, and 113: After generating the work procedure manual, for example, the administrator W3 approves the work procedure manual; If the work procedure manual is generated, the administrator W3 operates the terminal device T3 to approve the generated work procedure manual. Thereby, the generation of the work procedure manual is completed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung with Yatabe because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing facility maintenance, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because modifying Jung to incorporate Yatabe’s working plan that was drafted/modified by an administrator, as claimed, would serve the motivation to ensure management control of facility operations (Yatabe at par. 7); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Jung and Yatabe do not teach:
difference between the working plan and the actual work performance of the at least one group; and displaying the difference;
wherein the abnormality information in the report and the abnormality information included in each of the plurality of groups includes equipment information identifying equipment in the facility and abnormality content describing an abnormality with the identified equipment.
Cohen teaches:
difference between the working plan and the actual work performance of the at least one group; and displaying the difference (pars. 104, 925, 1098-1105, 1171-1188, and Fig. 18: e.g., tracking and tracing records (e.g. logged historical asset data and respective performance data); For selected assets, analyze performance data by selecting value types, calculating and comparing performance indicator; input specific or estimated improvement impact for customized improvement measures; visualization of scenarios; display different scenarios for selected assets with different improvement measures to compare effects of different combinations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung/Yatabe with Cohen because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing facility maintenance, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because modifying Jung/Yatabe to incorporate Cohen’s features for detecting and displaying a difference between a working plan and work performance of a group, as claimed, would serve the motivation to optimize improvement measures for one or more buildings (Cohen at par. 8); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Jung, Yatabe, and Cohen do not explicitly teach:
wherein the abnormality information in the report and the abnormality information included in each of the plurality of groups includes equipment information identifying equipment in the facility and abnormality content describing an abnormality with the identified equipment.
Holland teaches:
wherein the abnormality information in the report and the abnormality information included in each of the plurality of groups includes equipment information identifying equipment in the facility and abnormality content describing an abnormality with the identified equipment (col. 2 lines 50-55; col. 7 line 52 – col. 98 line 8; col. 10 lines 44-68, and Fig. 19: describing/ displaying identification and reporting of abnormal conditions for components and equipment groups, including a report such as the one shown in Fig. 19 depicting a plurality of Groups and identification of components/equipment and descriptions of corresponding abnormalities, such as the Group “South Catwalk” and equipment “Metering Module” and “Distribution Panel” both having and “Out of Range” abnormal condition - e.g., inspection defining module comprises a plurality of groups, and each of the groups identifies prompt information for a respective set of inspections associated with components included in that group; report that can be generated by a report generating computer (not shown) in response to the log file of the data module 32. After an inspection is completed, the log file contained in the data module 32 can be downloaded into a report generating computer (now shown) which utilizes the entries of the log file to generate a report such as that shown in FIG. 19. This report identifies the groups, components, and readings of the inspection, along with the actually entered readings and the expected responses. In addition, time and date stamps are provided, in this case only for the time and date the machine readable labels 76 were scanned. This report also lists all incidents recorded by the inspector such as "Required Action Taken" or "Report To Supervisor". Also, out of range readings are automatically flagged; reports can be generated for individual components, equipment groups, inspectors, abnormalities or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung/Yatabe/Cohen with Holland because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing facility maintenance, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because modifying Jung/Yatabe/Cohen to incorporate Holland’s grouped equipment abnormality information in the report, as claimed, would serve the motivation to manage equipment by organizing equipment into maintenance groups or families based on classification criterion (Jung at par. 105); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 17-18 are directed to a method and non-transitory computer readable medium for performing substantially similar limitations as those recited in claim 1 and discussed above. Jung, in view of Yatabe/Cohen/Holland, teaches a method and non-transitory computer readable medium for performing the limitations discussed above (Jung at pars. 3 and 41: remote maintenance method; discloses a computer readable recording medium on which a computer program for executing the remote maintenance method is written; See also, Yatabe at pars. 25 and 81; See also, Cohen at pars. 7 and 35-36; See also, Holland at col. 3 lines 31-59), and claims 17-18 are therefore rejected using the same references and for substantially the same reasons as set forth above.
Claim 3: Jung further teaches a relevant information acquirement unit that uses the at least one processor to acquire relevant information related to the difference between the working plan and the actual work performance of the at least one group, wherein the display processing unit includes a relevant information display processing unit that uses the at least one processor for displaying the relevant information on a display apparatus (pars. 232, 245, 247, 343, and Figs. 7-8: e.g., remote maintenance server 1 may receive and store various status information on the facilities 200 through the local controller…and allow the controller 1-4 to determine whether or not the facility is abnormal based on a variation trend of the relevant status information for a long period of time or a comparison with the relevant status information in a similar environment in the past; remote maintenance server 1 or service center server 2 may display an indicator for the abnormal facility on the maintenance server 1, service center server 2 or a terminal connected thereto; when notifying an administrator that there is an abnormal facility, the remote maintenance server 1 or service center server 2 may preferably provide the location of the abnormal facility at the same time, and more preferably provide a screen on which a location installed with the abnormal facility is displayed).
Claim 7: Each of Jung and Cohen further teaches an error output unit that uses the at least one processor to output an error according to a fact that there has been a discrepancy in each item included in the working plan and each item included in the actual work performance of the at least one group (Jung at par. 251: graphic object may be displayed in an icon format to allow the administrator to recognize a facility corresponding to this, and preferably displayed with any one or a combination of status information (operation or non-operation, operation mode, current temperature, target temperature, etc.) on the facility, whether or not the facility is abnormal, and a type of failure (indoor unit failure, output unit failure, network error, etc.); See also, Cohen at pars. 1583-1587 and 1633: e.g. error occurrence are determined. During these timeslots the air handling unit is working inefficiently, since the outside air temperature is too warm to cool the interior spaces with outdoor air).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Jung (US 2015/0295803) in view of Yatabe et al. (US 2016/0291577, hereinafter “Yatabe”) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2018/0231967, hereinafter “Cohen”) in view of Holland (US Patent No. 5,399,844), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fu et al. (US 2015/0089309, hereinafter “Fu”).
Claim 2: Jung, in view of Yatabe/Cohen/Holland, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above, but does not teach the limitation of claim 2.
Fu teaches wherein the selected group is the group having a highest calculated similarity among the plurality of groups (pars. 11, 89, 94, 96, and 106: e.g., calculating similarity between a new log file and multiple vectors in at least one group in response to having received the new log file from the system, the at least one group being obtained based on the method described above; treating a failure type indicated by a group to which a vector with the highest similarity belongs; pair of n-dimensional vectors with the highest similarity is clustered into a group; then, comparison is made as to which pair in the remaining (w-1) groups has the highest similarity, and this pair is clustered into a group; through repeated calculation as such, all clustering analysis is completed finally; similarity calculating method (e.g., cosine similarity or Euclidean distance), an n-dimensional vector {right arrow over (B)} having the highest similarity with the new n-dimensional vector is obtained, and a failure type indicated by a group to which the n-dimensional vector {right arrow over (B)} belongs is used).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland with Fu because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for maintenance, diagnostics, repairs and the like, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because modifying Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland to incorporate Fu’s features for selecting a groups having a highest calculated similarity, as claimed, in order to enhance Jung’s clustering with the goal of classifying according to a most relevant cluster (Jung at par. 123) and/or to enhance accuracy when comparing a current environment to a past environment (Jung at par. 232); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Jung (US 2015/0295803) in view of Yatabe et al. (US 2016/0291577, hereinafter “Yatabe”) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2018/0231967, hereinafter “Cohen”) in view of Holland (US Patent No. 5,399,844), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vanslette (US 2020/0126172, hereinafter “Vanslette”).
Claim 4: Jung, in view of Yatabe/Cohen/Holland, teaches wherein the difference detection unit that uses the at least one processor to detect the difference between the working plan and the actual work performance of the at least one group based on a difference (as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein), but does not teach of each item between the working plan and the actual work performance of the at least one group, including at least one of a number of workers, working time, or tools used in a work.
Vanslette teaches of each item between the working plan and the actual work performance of the at least one group, including at least one of a number of workers, working time, or tools used in a work (par. 69: compare an amount of time it takes a staff member to complete a particular maintenance task and compares it against aggregated data and averages of time that all staff members took to perform the particular task across the venue or a plurality of venues).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland with Vanslette because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing facility maintenance, repairs and the like, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because modifying the difference detection of Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland to incorporate Vanslette’s difference of each items between a working plan and actual work performance including working time, as claimed, would aid in performance benchmarking to determine operational efficiency (Vanslette at par. 69); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 8: Jung teaches wherein the display processing unit includes a difference display processing unit that uses the at least one processor to conduct processing for comparing and emphasizing an item with a difference of each item between the working plan and the actual work performance of the at least one group … to other items, and displaying the item on a display apparatus (pars. 232, 245, 251, and Fig. 7: determine whether or not the facility is abnormal based on a variation trend of the relevant status information for a long period of time or a comparison with the relevant status information in a similar environment in the past; graphic object may be displayed in an icon format to allow the administrator to recognize a facility corresponding to this, and preferably displayed with any one or a combination of status information (operation or non-operation, operation mode, current temperature, target temperature, etc.) on the facility, whether or not the facility is abnormal, and a type of failure (indoor unit failure, output unit failure, network error, etc.)), but does not teach difference…exceeding a predetermined threshold.
Vanslette teaches difference…exceeding a predetermined threshold (pars. 57 and 69: comparing their progress in a given activity or sub-activity against a benchmark; the data management tool can compare an amount of time it takes a staff member to complete a particular maintenance task and compares it against aggregated data and averages of time that all staff members took to perform the particular task across the venue or a plurality of venues. In particular, the data management tool 14 establishes benchmarks for an amount of time particular tasks take staff members to complete by tracking an amount of time spent in particular areas that were assigned/dispatched for maintenance. The benchmarks are utilized by the data management tool 14 to determine the efficiency of one staff member compared to one or more other staff members).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include, in the combination of Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland/Vanslette, Vanslette’s difference exceeding a predetermined threshold, as claimed, in order to employ benchmarking to determine operational efficiency (Vanslette at par. 69); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Jung (US 2015/0295803) in view of Yatabe et al. (US 2016/0291577, hereinafter “Yatabe”) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2018/0231967, hereinafter “Cohen”) in view of Holland (US Patent No. 5,399,844) in view of Vanslette (US 2020/0126172, hereinafter “Vanslette”), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bingham (US 2013/0096979).
Claim 5: Jung, in view of Yatabe/Cohen/Holland/Vanslette, teaches the limitations of claim 4 as set forth above. Jung does not teach the limitations of claim 5.
However, Vanslette further teaches wherein for an item with a difference of each item between the working plan and the actual work performance of the at least one group exceeding a predetermined threshold (pars. 57 and 69: comparing their progress in a given activity or sub-activity against a benchmark; the data management tool can compare an amount of time it takes a staff member to complete a particular maintenance task and compares it against aggregated data and averages of time that all staff members took to perform the particular task across the venue or a plurality of venues. In particular, the data management tool 14 establishes benchmarks for an amount of time particular tasks take staff members to complete by tracking an amount of time spent in particular areas that were assigned/dispatched for maintenance. The benchmarks are utilized by the data management tool 14 to determine the efficiency of one staff member compared to one or more other staff members).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include, in the combination of Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland/Vanslette, Vanslette’s difference exceeding a threshold, as claimed, in order to employ benchmarking to determine operational efficiency (Vanslette at par. 69); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Jung, Yatabe, Cohen, Holland, and Vanslette do not teach the display processing unit includes a risk display processing unit that uses the at least one processor to conduct processing for displaying an incident risk that may occur due to the difference of the item on a display apparatus.
Bingham teaches the display processing unit includes a risk display processing unit that uses the at least one processor to conduct processing for displaying an incident risk that may occur due to the difference of the item on a display apparatus (par. 7 and claim 1: e.g., user interface also interfaces with a safety calculation module that calculates the risk level for specific potential consequences if specific safety procedures are not implemented. Whenever a potentially unsafe situation occurs, the risk levels associated with the potential consequences of the unsafe situation are presented to the safety operator along with contingencies which may be implemented to alleviate the risks; safety calculation module for calculating risk levels and for graphically presenting said risk levels to said safety operator through said user interface using a color coded system, said risk levels being related to a probability of at least one consequence occurring in the event safety procedures for said plurality of components are not implemented).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland/Vanslette with Bingham because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing facility/equipment maintenance, repairs and the like, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because modifying the combination of Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland/Vanslette to incorporate Bingham’s incident risk display feature, as claimed, in order to ensure workers are cognizant of risks and consequences related to safety and equipment maintenances at a facility (Bingham at par. 6; and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Jung (US 2015/0295803) in view of Yatabe et al. (US 2016/0291577, hereinafter “Yatabe”) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2018/0231967, hereinafter “Cohen”) in view of Holland (US Patent No. 5,399,844), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wesby (US 2005/0222933).
Claim 6: Jung, in view of Yatabe/Cohen/Holland, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above, but does not teach the limitation of claim 6.
Wesby teaches a determination unit that uses the at least one processor to determine an allowable range of the working plan by using the at least one group selected by the selection unit; and a judgement unit that uses the at least one processor to judge whether the working plan is within the allowable range (pars. 77, 102, and 106-107: Each server-based software application module is tailored to map a set of asset operational parameters to ranges of acceptable operation and the application module is further capable of generating alarm messages when data received from a particular asset indicates that it is operating outside acceptable operating ranges; system server service platform; parameters defining and controlling the operational characteristics of each managed asset are stored and controlled by a specified asset management software application. In addition, ranges of acceptable operating conditions are also stored and controlled by the said software application such that alarm conditions are established when any operating conditions move outside any of the corresponding acceptable ranges of operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland with Wesby because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing facility/equipment maintenance, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because further including Wesby’s features for determining an allowable range and judging whether a working plan is within that range, as claimed, would provide the benefit of detecting and responding to potentially costly or dangerous consequences from activity occurring outside of an acceptable range; and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 9, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Jung (US 2015/0295803) in view of Yatabe et al. (US 2016/0291577, hereinafter “Yatabe”) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2018/0231967, hereinafter “Cohen”) in view of Holland (US Patent No. 5,399,844), as applied to claims 1, 3, and 7 above, and further in view of Rappaport et al. (US 2003/0023412, hereinafter “Rappaport”).
Claim 9: Jung, in view of Yatabe/Cohen/Holland, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above, but does not teach the limitation of claim 9.
Rappaport teaches an adding unit that uses the at least one processor to add a group of abnormality information about an abnormality occurred in the facility and a working plan used to address the abnormality to the database as a group of abnormality information and an actual work performance (pars. 14, 38, 78, 93, 96-102: e.g., record and continually edit and modify the maintenance records of the system as well as track the cost, maintenance repairs, and ongoing performance of the system and the components that make up the system; determine performance and alarm events as well as system or network performance metrics that may be compared, stored, measured, visualized, displayed and aggregated; asset management system that allows one to aggregate, retrieve, analyze, compare, or measure extensive amounts of site-specific information; actual or predicted maintenance history, supplier, actual or predicted alarm history, actual or predicted performance history; create an asset management system that can mine the information stored in files that each use a unified database such that a user can quantify specific information about the placements, predicted performance measured performance, maintenance history, cost history, and troubleshooting data for particular components; Computing platforms connected to a computer network 191, mobile computers ("laptops") connected to a computer network 192, and/or handheld computers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland with Rappaport because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing facility/equipment maintenance, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because further including Rappaport’s features for adding a group of abnormality information and working plan to a database as a group of abnormality information and actual work performance, as claimed, in order to facilitate archiving of relevant status information to evaluate against potential future abnormalities (Jung at par. 232); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 11: Jung, in view of Yatabe/Cohen/Holland, teaches the limitations of claim 3 as set forth above, but does not teach the limitation of claim 11.
Rappaport teaches an adding unit that uses the at least one processor to add a group of abnormality information about an abnormality occurred in the facility and a working plan used to address the abnormality to the database as a group of abnormality information and an actual work performance (pars. 14, 38, 78, 93, 96-102: e.g., record and continually edit and modify the maintenance records of the system as well as track the cost, maintenance repairs, and ongoing performance of the system and the components that make up the system; determine performance and alarm events as well as system or network performance metrics that may be compared, stored, measured, visualized, displayed and aggregated; asset management system that allows one to aggregate, retrieve, analyze, compare, or measure extensive amounts of site-specific information; actual or predicted maintenance history, supplier, actual or predicted alarm history, actual or predicted performance history; create an asset management system that can mine the information stored in files that each use a unified database such that a user can quantify specific information about the placements, predicted performance measured performance, maintenance history, cost history, and troubleshooting data for particular components; Computing platforms connected to a computer network 191, mobile computers ("laptops") connected to a computer network 192, and/or handheld computers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland with Rappaport because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing facility/equipment maintenance, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because further including Rappaport’s features for adding a group of abnormality information and working plan to a database as a group of abnormality information and actual work performance, as claimed, in order to facilitate archiving of relevant status information to evaluate against potential future abnormalities (Jung at par. 232); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15: Jung, in view of Yatabe/Cohen/Holland, teaches the limitations of claim 7 as set forth above, but does not teach the limitation of claim 15.
Rappaport teaches an adding unit that uses the at least one processor to add a group of abnormality information about an abnormality occurred in the facility and a working plan used to address the abnormality to the database as a group of abnormality information and an actual work performance (pars. 14, 38, 78, 93, 96-102: e.g., record and continually edit and modify the maintenance records of the system as well as track the cost, maintenance repairs, and ongoing performance of the system and the components that make up the system; determine performance and alarm events as well as system or network performance metrics that may be compared, stored, measured, visualized, displayed and aggregated; asset management system that allows one to aggregate, retrieve, analyze, compare, or measure extensive amounts of site-specific information; actual or predicted maintenance history, supplier, actual or predicted alarm history, actual or predicted performance history; create an asset management system that can mine the information stored in files that each use a unified database such that a user can quantify specific information about the placements, predicted performance measured performance, maintenance history, cost history, and troubleshooting data for particular components; Computing platforms connected to a computer network 191, mobile computers ("laptops") connected to a computer network 192, and/or handheld computers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland with Rappaport because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing facility/equipment maintenance, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because further including Rappaport’s features for adding a group of abnormality information and working plan to a database as a group of abnormality information and actual work performance, as claimed, in order to facilitate archiving of relevant status information to evaluate against potential future abnormalities (Jung at par. 232); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Jung (US 2015/0295803) in view of Yatabe et al. (US 2016/0291577, hereinafter “Yatabe”) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2018/0231967, hereinafter “Cohen”) in view of Holland (US Patent No. 5,399,844) in view of Ugai (US 2008/0028362, hereinafter “Ugai”), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of and further in view of Rappaport et al. (US 2003/0023412, hereinafter “Rappaport”).
Claim 10: Jung, in view of Yatabe/Cohen/Holland/Ugai, teaches the limitations of claim 2 as set forth above, but does not teach the limitation of claim 10.
Rappaport teaches an adding unit that uses the at least one processor to add a group of abnormality information about an abnormality occurred in the facility and a working plan used to address the abnormality to the database as a group of abnormality information and an actual work performance (pars. 14, 38, 78, 93, 96-102: e.g., record and continually edit and modify the maintenance records of the system as well as track the cost, maintenance repairs, and ongoing performance of the system and the components that make up the system; determine performance and alarm events as well as system or network performance metrics that may be compared, stored, measured, visualized, displayed and aggregated; asset management system that allows one to aggregate, retrieve, analyze, compare, or measure extensive amounts of site-specific information; actual or predicted maintenance history, supplier, actual or predicted alarm history, actual or predicted performance history; create an asset management system that can mine the information stored in files that each use a unified database such that a user can quantify specific information about the placements, predicted performance measured performance, maintenance history, cost history, and troubleshooting data for particular components; Computing platforms connected to a computer network 191, mobile computers ("laptops") connected to a computer network 192, and/or handheld computers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland/Ugai with Rappaport because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing facility/equipment maintenance, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because further including Rappaport’s features for adding a group of abnormality information and working plan to a database as a group of abnormality information and actual work performance, as claimed, in order to facilitate archiving of relevant status information to evaluate against potential future abnormalities (Jung at par. 232); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Jung (US 2015/0295803) in view of Yatabe et al. (US 2016/0291577, hereinafter “Yatabe”) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2018/0231967, hereinafter “Cohen”) in view of Holland (US Patent No. 5,399,844) in view of Vanslette (US 2020/0126172, hereinafter “Vanslette”), as applied to claims 4 and 8 above, and further in view of Rappaport et al. (US 2003/0023412, hereinafter “Rappaport”).
Claim 12: Jung, in view of Yatabe/Cohen/Holland/Vanslette, teaches the limitations of claim 4 as set forth above, but does not teach the limitation of claim 12.
Rappaport teaches an adding unit that uses the at least one processor to add a group of abnormality information about an abnormality occurred in the facility and a working plan used to address the abnormality to the database as a group of abnormality information and an actual work performance (pars. 14, 38, 78, 93, 96-102: e.g., record and continually edit and modify the maintenance records of the system as well as track the cost, maintenance repairs, and ongoing performance of the system and the components that make up the system; determine performance and alarm events as well as system or network performance metrics that may be compared, stored, measured, visualized, displayed and aggregated; asset management system that allows one to aggregate, retrieve, analyze, compare, or measure extensive amounts of site-specific information; actual or predicted maintenance history, supplier, actual or predicted alarm history, actual or predicted performance history; create an asset management system that can mine the information stored in files that each use a unified database such that a user can quantify specific information about the placements, predicted performance measured performance, maintenance history, cost history, and troubleshooting data for particular components; Computing platforms connected to a computer network 191, mobile computers ("laptops") connected to a computer network 192, and/or handheld computers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland/Vanslette with Rappaport because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing facility/equipment maintenance, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because further including Rappaport’s features for adding a group of abnormality information and working plan to a database as a group of abnormality information and actual work performance, as claimed, in order to facilitate archiving of relevant status information to evaluate against potential future abnormalities (Jung at par. 232); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 16: Jung, in view of Yatabe/Cohen/Holland/Vanslette, teaches the limitations of claim 8 as set forth above, but does not teach the limitation of claim 16.
Rappaport teaches an adding unit that uses the at least one processor to add a group of abnormality information about an abnormality occurred in the facility and a working plan used to address the abnormality to the database as a group of abnormality information and an actual work performance (pars. 14, 38, 78, 93, 96-102: e.g., record and continually edit and modify the maintenance records of the system as well as track the cost, maintenance repairs, and ongoing performance of the system and the components that make up the system; determine performance and alarm events as well as system or network performance metrics that may be compared, stored, measured, visualized, displayed and aggregated; asset management system that allows one to aggregate, retrieve, analyze, compare, or measure extensive amounts of site-specific information; actual or predicted maintenance history, supplier, actual or predicted alarm history, actual or predicted performance history; create an asset management system that can mine the information stored in files that each use a unified database such that a user can quantify specific information about the placements, predicted performance measured performance, maintenance history, cost history, and troubleshooting data for particular components; Computing platforms connected to a computer network 191, mobile computers ("laptops") connected to a computer network 192, and/or handheld computers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland/Vanslette with Rappaport because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing facility/equipment maintenance, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because further including Rappaport’s features for adding a group of abnormality information and working plan to a database as a group of abnormality information and actual work performance, as claimed, in order to facilitate archiving of relevant status information to evaluate against potential future abnormalities (Jung at par. 232); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Jung (US 2015/0295803) in view of Yatabe et al. (US 2016/0291577, hereinafter “Yatabe”) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2018/0231967, hereinafter “Cohen”) in view of Holland (US Patent No. 5,399,844) in view of Vanslette (US 2020/0126172, hereinafter “Vanslette”) in view of Bingham (US 2013/0096979), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Rappaport et al. (US 2003/0023412, hereinafter “Rappaport”).
Claim 13: Jung, in view of Yatabe/Cohen/Holland/Vanslette/Bingham, teaches the limitations of claim 5 as set forth above, but does not teach the limitation of claim 13.
Rappaport teaches an adding unit that uses the at least one processor to add a group of abnormality information about an abnormality occurred in the facility and a working plan used to address the abnormality to the database as a group of abnormality information and an actual work performance (pars. 14, 38, 78, 93, 96-102: e.g., record and continually edit and modify the maintenance records of the system as well as track the cost, maintenance repairs, and ongoing performance of the system and the components that make up the system; determine performance and alarm events as well as system or network performance metrics that may be compared, stored, measured, visualized, displayed and aggregated; asset management system that allows one to aggregate, retrieve, analyze, compare, or measure extensive amounts of site-specific information; actual or predicted maintenance history, supplier, actual or predicted alarm history, actual or predicted performance history; create an asset management system that can mine the information stored in files that each use a unified database such that a user can quantify specific information about the placements, predicted performance measured performance, maintenance history, cost history, and troubleshooting data for particular components; Computing platforms connected to a computer network 191, mobile computers ("laptops") connected to a computer network 192, and/or handheld computers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland/Vanslette/Bingham with Rappaport because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing facility/equipment maintenance, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because further including Rappaport’s features for adding a group of abnormality information and working plan to a database as a group of abnormality information and actual work performance, as claimed, in order to facilitate archiving of relevant status information to evaluate against potential future abnormalities (Jung at par. 232); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Jung (US 2015/0295803) in view of Yatabe et al. (US 2016/0291577, hereinafter “Yatabe”) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2018/0231967, hereinafter “Cohen”) in view of Holland (US Patent No. 5,399,844) in view of Wesby (US 2005/0222933), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Rappaport et al. (US 2003/0023412, hereinafter “Rappaport”).
Claim 14: Jung, in view of Yatabe/Cohen/Holland/Wesby, teaches the limitations of claim 6 as set forth above, but does not teach the limitation of claim 14.
Rappaport teaches an adding unit that uses the at least one processor to add a group of abnormality information about an abnormality occurred in the facility and a working plan used to address the abnormality to the database as a group of abnormality information and an actual work performance (pars. 14, 38, 78, 93, 96-102: e.g., record and continually edit and modify the maintenance records of the system as well as track the cost, maintenance repairs, and ongoing performance of the system and the components that make up the system; determine performance and alarm events as well as system or network performance metrics that may be compared, stored, measured, visualized, displayed and aggregated; asset management system that allows one to aggregate, retrieve, analyze, compare, or measure extensive amounts of site-specific information; actual or predicted maintenance history, supplier, actual or predicted alarm history, actual or predicted performance history; create an asset management system that can mine the information stored in files that each use a unified database such that a user can quantify specific information about the placements, predicted performance measured performance, maintenance history, cost history, and troubleshooting data for particular components; Computing platforms connected to a computer network 191, mobile computers ("laptops") connected to a computer network 192, and/or handheld computers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland/Wesby with Rappaport because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing facility/equipment maintenance, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because further including Rappaport’s features for adding a group of abnormality information and working plan to a database as a group of abnormality information and actual work performance, as claimed, in order to facilitate archiving of relevant status information to evaluate against potential future abnormalities (Jung at par. 232); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Jung (US 2015/0295803) in view of Yatabe et al. (US 2016/0291577, hereinafter “Yatabe”) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2018/0231967, hereinafter “Cohen”) in view of Holland (US Patent No. 5,399,844), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shetty et al. (US 2019/0317480, hereinafter “Shetty”).
Claim 19: Jung, in view of Yatabe/Cohen/Holland, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above, but does not teach the limitation of claim 19.
Shetty teaches wherein the selection unit uses the at least one processor to select, with higher priority, a group more closely matching the equipment information and/or the abnormality content (pars. 35 and 48: e.g., inference manager 127 determines a failure mode from the retrieved failure mode definitions that is associated with a topic by determining the similarity between the topic and each failure mode and then selecting the failure mode having the highest similarity with the topic to be associated with the topic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung/Yatabe/Cohen/Holland with Shetty because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for managing facility/equipment maintenance, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of facility maintenance, and because further including Shetty’s feature for selecting a group more closely matching the abnormality content, as claimed, would serve the motivation to enhance accuracy by comparing information from a similar past environment with a current environment to evaluate a potential abnormality (Jung at par. 232); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Allowable over the prior art
Claim 20 is allowable over the prior art. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach or render obvious the limitation of wherein the similarity calculation unit calculates the similarity based on both the equipment information and the abnormality content, and wherein the selection unit selects, with higher priority, a group from the plurality of groups having abnormality information more closely matching both the equipment information and the abnormality content, as recited and arranged in claim 20 when taken in combination with the limitations inherited from base claim 1. Claim 20 is not allowed, however, because this claim stands rejected under 35 USC §101, as discussed above. In addition, even if the §101 rejection is overcome, dependent claim 20 would be objected to as dependent upon a rejected base claim and would be allowable only if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of its base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
"IEEE Standard Specifications for Maintenance and Test of Distributed Control Systems in Thermal Power Stations: Operation Service and Management," in IEEE Std 1865.2-2019 , vol., no., pp.1-202, 10 April 2020: discloses industry standard techniques such as records/reporting of equipment defects/abnormalities (pg. 24) comparative analysis in relation to defects, trends, and performance related thereto.
S. R. Bereiter and S. M. Miller, "A field-based study of troubleshooting in computer-controlled manufacturing systems," in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 205-219, March-April 1989: discloses techniques for collecting and analyzing data related to faults in a manufacturing system, including evaluating retrospective reports as comparted to concurrent reports, determining differences between intended and observed system operation, and group based analysis of different types of episode and corresponding solutions.
Enck (US 2016/0210569): discloses features for building performance improvement, including calculating overall health of the building in comparison to its potential peak performance (at least par. 66).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Timothy A. Padot whose telephone number is 571.270.1252. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 - 5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571.270.5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TIMOTHY PADOT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights