DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the arguments and amendments filed February 26, 2026.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 17, and 18 have been cancelled.
Claims 21 and 22 are newly added.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-16, and 19-22 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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 1-6, 9, 11-16, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
In terms of step 1, claims 1-6, 9, 11-16, and 19-22 are directed towards one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
In terms of step 2(a)(1), independent claims 1 and 11 are directed towards (as represented by claim 1), “A method for optimizing smart gas work order scheduling implemented by an Internet of Things system for optimizing smart gas work order scheduling, comprising: obtaining a newly-generated work order to be assigned from the smart gas service platform, wherein the newly-generated work order to be assigned is generated by the smart gas service platform based on a gas processing request received from the smart gas user platform; determining at least one target scheduling sub-domain corresponding to the work order to be assigned from a plurality of scheduling sub-domains based on a gas inquiry feature of the work order to be assigned and a gas user feature of the work order to be assigned through a preset approach, wherein the gas inquiry feature includes at least one of an inquiry type and inquiry location information, and the gas user feature includes at least one of a user type, a terminal type, and a usage feature, wherein the gas user feature is determined based on gas pipeline network related information, and the gas pipeline network related information is obtained from the smart gas object platform through the smart gas sensor network platform; assigning the work order to be assigned; and performing an order acceptance scheduling on the work order to be assigned in each scheduling sub-domain of the plurality of scheduling sub-domains, including: determining an urgency degree of the work order to be assigned in a current scheduling sub-domain based on the inquiry type, a terminal feature, and a usage feature of the work order to be assigned; determining an order acceptance generic value of personnel that accept a work order in the current scheduling sub-domain based on a historical order acceptance distribution of the personnel that accept the work order; and performing the order acceptance scheduling on the work order to be assigned in the current scheduling sub-domain based on the urgency degree of the work order to be assigned and the order acceptance generic value of the personnel that accept the work order, including: sending the work order to a terminal device of the personnel that accept the work order by a smart operation service sub-platform to enable the terminal device of the personnel that accept the work order to process the work order”. The claims are directed towards obtaining a work order to schedule and assign the work order. The claims are directed towards assigning the work order within a scheduling system based on a work order. Scheduling is based on the type, usage, location, urgency and other aspects of the information gathered from the work order. In terms of the urgency and other analysis, there is not specific model or algorithm, but rather basing the scheduling of the work order based on historical order acceptance and other values for the personnel and urgency. These further describe the abstract idea in terms of the availability of technicians and their historical basis to accept work orders to then process the work order by presenting to the personnel to accept. Based on the consideration, the claims are describing a commercial interaction in terms of scheduling a maintenance work order for a smart gas system. As such, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea under the certain method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims also describe an additional abstract idea in terms of a mental process. The claims provide a mental process within a technical environment. A person would be able (with pen and paper) to receive a work order, observe and judge the type, location, urgency =, and other elements of the work order, and assign a schedule for the work order accordingly. In terms of the urgency and other analysis, there is not specific model or algorithm, but rather basing the scheduling of the work order based on historical order acceptance and other values for the personnel and urgency. These further describe the abstract idea in terms of the availability of technicians and their historical basis to accept work orders to then process the work order by presenting to the personnel to accept. A person would be able to ascertain and observe historical work orders to determine a scheduling element for the technician for a work order and presenting the work order based on the analysis and urgency. The mental process consideration provides claim limitations within a computer environment which includes the sub-domain, platform, and IOT/smart gas elements that the mental process is performed within. As such, the claims are also directed towards an abstract idea under the mental process grouping.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements in terms of being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements of claims 1 and 11 are, “the Internet of Things system comprising a smart gas user platform, a smart gas service platform, and a smart gas management platform, a smart gas sensor network platform, and a smart gas object platform that interact in sequence, the smart gas user platform including a terminal device, the smart gas management platform including a smart management sub-platform and a smart gas data center, the smart gas object platform including an indoor device and a pipeline network device, the indoor device including a gas meter, the pipeline network device including at least one of a gas regulating station, a pipeline network monitoring device, and a pipeline network valve control device, and the method being executed by the smart management sub- platform, comprising: obtaining, based on the smart gas data center (claim 1), An Internet of Things system for optimizing smart gas work order scheduling, wherein the Internet of Things system comprises a smart gas user platform, a smart gas service platform, a smart gas management platform a smart gas sensor network platform and a smart gas object platform that interact in sequence, the smart gas user platform includes a terminal device, the smart gas management platform includes a smart management sub-platform and a smart gas data center, the smart gas object platform includes an indoor device and a pipeline network device, the indoor device includes a gas meter, the pipeline network device includes at least one of a gas regulating station, a pipeline network monitoring device, and a pipeline network valve control device, and the smart management sub-platform is configured to (claim 11), based on the smart gas data center; to a corresponding target scheduling sub-domain; wherein the gas user feature is determined based on gas pipeline network related information, and the gas pipeline network related information is obtained from the smart gas object platform through the smart gas sensor network platform”. The computer and platform elements are described in the originally filed specification [19-24, 52-56, and 138]. The additional elements are merely described in terms of generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The IOT, platform, and sub-domains are merely described as a tool to provide the commercial activity through the use of generic technology. Further, based on the consideration, the scheduling additional element includes a person that is accept the work order which further describes the abstract idea in terms of the mental process that a person would be able to collect, analyze, and be displayed the results to accept the work order schedule. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements in terms of being significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). The additional elements of claims 1 and 11 are, “the Internet of Things system comprising a smart gas user platform, a smart gas service platform, and a smart gas management platform that interact in sequence, and the method being executed by the smart gas management platform (claim 1), An Internet of Things system for optimizing smart gas work order scheduling, wherein the Internet of Things system comprises a smart gas user platform, a smart gas service platform, and a smart gas management platform that interact in sequence, and the smart gas management platform is configured to (claim 11), scheduling sub-domain”. The computer and platform elements are described in the originally filed specification [19-24, 52-56, and 138]. The additional elements are merely described in terms of generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The IOT, platform, and sub-domains are merely described as a tool to provide the commercial activity through the use of generic technology. Further, based on the consideration, the scheduling additional element includes a person that is accept the work order which further describes the abstract idea in terms of the mental process that a person would be able to collect, analyze, and be displayed the results to accept the work order schedule. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-6 and 12-16 are directed towards further additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards, “wherein the plurality of scheduling sub-domains are determined based on historical work order to be assigned within a preset time period, wherein the operation of determining the plurality of scheduling sub-domains based on a historical work order to be assigned within a preset time period includes: determining a preset count of clustering centers; determining a preset count of clusters by clustering the historical work order to be assigned within the preset time period, wherein a clustering feature for clustering at least includes the gas inquiry feature and the gas user feature, and the preset time period includes a preset historical time period; and determining each cluster of the preset count of the clusters as a scheduling sub-domain”, “wherein the clustering feature further includes a gas work order feature, and the gas work order feature includes at least one of a call inquiry duration and a message interaction degree”, “wherein the clustering feature further includes a historical gas fault distribution and fault inquiry data”, “wherein the determining the at least one target scheduling sub-domain corresponding to the work order to be assigned from the plurality of scheduling sub-domains based on the gas inquiry feature and the gas user feature of the work order to be assigned through a preset approach, including: determining a vector of the work order to be assigned based on the gas inquiry feature of the work order to be assigned and the gas user feature of the work order to be assigned; and determining the target scheduling sub-domain corresponding to the work order to be assigned based on the vector of the work order to be assigned and sub-domain feature vectors of the plurality of scheduling sub-domains, wherein the sub-domain feature vectors are determined based on the clustering features of the clustering centers of the clusters”, and “wherein the determining the target scheduling sub-domain corresponding to the work order to be assigned based on the vector of the work order to be assigned and the sub-domain feature vectors of the plurality of scheduling sub-domains includes: determining similarity of the vector of the work order to be assigned and each sub-domain feature vector; determining sub-domain busyness of each scheduling sub-domain; and determining the target scheduling sub-domain based on the similarity and the sub-domain busyness”. The claims are directed towards further additional elements in terms of the clustering feature and similarity/feature vectors. These additional elements are providing aspects of analysis for assigning the work order and scheduling. The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification [71-76 and 106-115]. The analysis elements are described using generic technology with respect to techniques provided. The analysis is performed by ML/AI techniques and Euclidian distance/vector algorithms that are merely tools to implement the identified abstract idea(s). The additional elements are not describing a technical improvement, but rather generic technology to implement the abstract idea. This further includes the dependent claims that further clarify and describe the inputs and other aspects of the analysis steps described in claims 2/12 and 5/15. The inputs and other aspects are further describing the generic technology or data within the analysis and are not directed towards a technical improvement but further providing generic technology to implement. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 9 and 19 are further describing the identified abstract idea(s) and are not directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards, “wherein the smart gas management platform is further configured to: in response to the inquiry type being a fault reporting, determining the urgency degree based on a historical gas fault distribution and a fault location accuracy”. The claims provide aspects of urgency analysis, but the urgency analysis within the claims is based on historical acceptance distribution, current scheduling, and other determinations. Examiner notes that the urgency analysis is merely describing aspects of mental consideration and commercial activity to provide the determination. There is no specific model or algorithm, but rather steps to assign the work based on historical elements, type of maintenance needed, and other reporting elements. A person would be able to mentally opine and judge urgency when assigning the work order and the commercial activity provides aspects of higher urgency for larger terminals/objects (as described in paragraph [121]). As such, the claims are further describing the identified abstract ideas and are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application.
Dependent claims 20 is directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. The claim is directed towards, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein when reading the computer instructions in the storage medium, a computer executes a method for optimizing smart gas work order scheduling of claim 1”. The claims are describing the technical environment and computer aspects to implement the claims above. In terms of the consideration, the additional elements are described in the originally filed specification [28-31 and 138]. The additional elements are merely describing generic technology to implement the identified abstract idea(s). The additional elements are not describing technical improvements. As such, the claim is not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 21 and 22 are further describing the identified abstract idea and are not directed towards further additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards, “
The claimed invention are describing an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1-6, 9, 11-16, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments filed February 26, 2026 on pages 11-22 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, specifically that the amended claim limitations are directed towards eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The arguments allege that the additional elements (primarily pointed towards the device and sub-system/platforms) that directly provide speed and processing of work orders. First, speed and efficiency is a direct consideration with respect to both the abstract idea considerations (specifically with mental process) and the additional element consideration. In terms of the abstract idea, the sub-platforms and devices provide a technical environment for the mental process being implemented in. The claims are providing a scheduling and work order to a technician based on different variables (urgency, schedule, and other aspects) to provide an acceptance of the work order. While the sub-platform and devices provide devices and terminals to process the data, the overall consideration is that the claims are describing a work order scheduling and acceptance in a technical environment that a person would be able to perform mentally with pen and paper. Further, the abstract idea is identified as a certain method of organizing human activity. Scheduling a work order based on technician availability, work order urgency, and other aspects is a commercial interaction specific to gas pipeline/maintenance operations. In terms of the additional element consideration of the sub-platforms and devices, MPEP states, “Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” is specific towards the elements not being considered a technical improvement. The sub-platforms, devices, and other computer aspects are merely generic technology to implement the abstract idea.
While the arguments allege and point towards Example 45 of the eligibility examples, the claims are not directed towards analogous subject matter. Claim 2 of example 45 is towards a specific injection mold operation that describes opening and ejecting the mold based on a calculation. The current claims of the pending application is describing a collection of work order data, analyzing based on urgency, scheduling, and other elements to display a schedule (for a technician to accept).
Further arguments are with respect to the hardware and other platform elements, but these aspects have been considered as additional elements. The computer, device, and platform elements are merely generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The arguments even highlight the abstract idea nature of the claimed invention by describing the result of “thereby guiding maintenance personnel to perform physical maintenance on the gas pipeline network and ensuring that gas users can use gas normally” [pg. 17]. The display is providing to a technician the work order for the technician to accept. The claims are describing both a mental process and a certain method of organizing human activity.
In terms of the arguments regarding the Step 2(b) consideration and that the additional elements of the amended claim limitations, the specific arguments are based on the urgency analysis as providing a technical improvement. First, Examiner notes that the 2106.05 well-understood, routine, and conventional consideration was not cited. Examiner notes that the additional elements were found to be generic technology to implement the abstract idea. Further, the improvements provided in the arguments are not provided within the specification. There is no written description or support in terms of the improved optimization. Again, the MPEP discusses the additional element consideration of the sub-platforms and devices, “Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” is specific towards the elements not being considered a technical improvement. Merely implementing the scheduling process with computer and platform elements are not directed towards a technical improvement. As such, the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application.
Lacking any further arguments, claims 1-6, 9, 11-16, and 19-22 are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended and newly added claim limitations.
In response to the arguments filed February 26, 2026 on pages 22-34 regarding the prior art rejections, specifically that the amended claim limitations are not taught by the cited prior art. Examiner agrees. The prior art rejection has been withdrawn based on the specific amendments in claim 1 and 11 regarding the platform elements and urgency aspects alongside the combination of elements. Based on the considered prior art and further search, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (EST).
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights