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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 19 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
receive a request to initiate a service update on a unit of equipment, where said update of equipment has an impairment status;
identify said unit of equipment via an identifier, wherein said identifier is associated with said unit of equipment;
identify a service personnel to conduct said service update, wherein said service personnel possesses necessary credentials required for the specific type of service being performed;
receive service confirmation, generated during a service even conducted at the unit of equipment, from said service personnel;
verify that said service personnel possesses a credential required for the specific type of service being performed; and
verify that the service personnel was physically present with a geo-fenced area associated with the unit of equipment during the service event and prior to updating the impairment status; and
update the impairment status of service associated with said unit of equipment, based at least in part on said credential of said service personnel and said service personnel being verified in the specified geo-fenced area associated with said unit of equipment, wherein the impairment status of the unit of equipment is updated only when both credential verification and location verification are successfully satisfied; and
provide updated impairment status to an authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) in real time.
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of maintenance scheduling and management and/or asset inspection and management, which corresponds to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by humans, e.g., a first human contacting a second human, informing the second human that an asset requires servicing, the second human, via collection and comparison of information, verifying whether the first human is qualified or has the necessary credentials to perform the service, and the first human performing the service and updating the status of the asset. The invention is also directed towards the inspection of assets that are due for inspection by a qualified inspector.
The limitations of:
receive a request to initiate a service update on a unit of equipment, where said update of equipment has an impairment status;
identify said unit of equipment via an identifier, wherein said identifier is associated with said unit of equipment;
identify a service personnel to conduct said service update, wherein said service personnel possesses necessary credentials required for the specific type of service being performed;
receive service confirmation, generated during a service even conducted at the unit of equipment, from said service personnel;
verify that said service personnel possesses a credential required for the specific type of service being performed; and
verify that the service personnel was physically present with a geo-fenced area associated with the unit of equipment during the service event and prior to updating the impairment status; and
update the impairment status of service associated with said unit of equipment, based at least in part on said credential of said service personnel and said service personnel being verified in the specified geo-fenced area associated with said unit of equipment, wherein the impairment status of the unit of equipment is updated only when both credential verification and location verification are successfully satisfied; and
provide updated impairment status to an authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) in real time
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor and modules. That is, other than reciting a generic processor and modules nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic processor and modules in the context of this claim encompasses a user/inspector/technician (or the like) can observe/inspect the condition of an asset, have their credentials verified, e.g., comparing their name against a list of qualified inspectors, perform the inspection, and update the inspection records. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor and modules, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a generic processor and modules to receive and transmit information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind or using pen and paper, i.e. collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule, identify options, as well as writing down (updated/new) information. The generic processor and modules in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and modules can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the a generic processor and modules are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor and modules.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic processor and modules to perform the steps of:
receive a request to initiate a service update on a unit of equipment, where said update of equipment has an impairment status;
identify said unit of equipment via an identifier, wherein said identifier is associated with said unit of equipment;
identify a service personnel to conduct said service update, wherein said service personnel possesses necessary credentials required for the specific type of service being performed;
receive service confirmation, generated during a service even conducted at the unit of equipment, from said service personnel;
verify that said service personnel possesses a credential required for the specific type of service being performed; and
verify that the service personnel was physically present with a geo-fenced area associated with the unit of equipment during the service event and prior to updating the impairment status; and
update the impairment status of service associated with said unit of equipment, based at least in part on said credential of said service personnel and said service personnel being verified in the specified geo-fenced area associated with said unit of equipment, wherein the impairment status of the unit of equipment is updated only when both credential verification and location verification are successfully satisfied; and
provide updated impairment status to an authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) in real time
Additionally:
Claim 2 is directed towards the collecting and comparison of information and, based on a rule, identify options, in this case, to perform a verification process.
Claim 3 is directed to human activities, in this case, removing a part from inventory to service an asset.
Claim 4 is directed towards the collecting and comparison of information and, based on a rule, identify options, in this case, determine if the service was property performed.
Claim 5 is directed towards human activities and descriptive subject matter, in this case, a user providing information and describing the information as images.
Claim 6 is directed towards the reciting generic technology and applying it to the abstract idea. The machine learning module has already been trained and recited in a generic manner.
Although the claim recites “using a machine learning module trained on image data,” the claims and specification fail to provide sufficient disclosure regarding an improvement to how a machine learning algorithm can be trained, but simply recites a high-level generic recitation that a machine learning algorithm is being trained. There is insufficient evidence from the specification to indicate that the use of the machine learning algorithm involves anything other than the generic application of a known technique in its normal, routine, and ordinary capacity or that the claimed invention purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself or the machine learning algorithm. None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Even training and applying a machine learning model is simply application of a computer model, itself an abstract idea manifestation. Further, such training and applying of a model is no more than putting data into a black box machine learning operation. The nomination as being a machine learning model is a functional label, devoid of technological implementation and application details. The specification does not contend it invented any of these activities, or the creation and use of such machine learning models. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The Examiner asserts that the scope of the disclosed invention, as presented in the originally filed specification, is not directed towards the improvement of machine learning, but directed towards maintenance scheduling and management and/or asset inspection and management. The specification’s disclosure on machine learning is nothing more than a high general explanation of generic technology and applying it to the abstract idea. Referring to MPEP § 2106.05(f), the use of the machine learning module is merely being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, which provides nothing more than a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP § 2106.05(f). The Examiner asserts that in light of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, the claimed invention is analogous to Example 47, Claim 2.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system with machine learning model(s). Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 7 is directed to extra solution activities, i.e. receiving data, and human activities, in this case, generating additional/new information based on the collection and comparison of information.
Claim 8 is directed to extra solution activities, i.e. receiving data.
Claim 9 is directed to extra solution activities, i.e. transmitting/providing data.
Claim 10 is directed to descriptive subject matter describing an intent.
The remaining claims are similar to what has already been discussed.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for maintenance scheduling and management and/or asset inspection and management. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnier (US PGPub 2021/0374296 A1) in view of Thorley et al. (US PGPub 20190272362 A1).
In regards to claims 1, 11, Minnier discloses (Claim 1) a system for automated service status and impairment tracking, the system comprising; (Claim 11) a method for automated service status and impairment tracking, the method comprising:
one or more hardware processors configured by machine readable instructions to
(Fig. 1; 4; ¶ 44, 48 wherein a network, database, provider device, and service personnel device are disclosed; ¶ 44, 45 wherein the database stores equipment information);
receive (Claim 11: receiving, via one or more hardware processors,) a request to initiate a service update on a unit of equipment, where said unit of equipment has an impairment status (Fig. 3, 5; ¶ 29, 48, 49 wherein the provider device receives a request that service is needed for equipment because it is, for example, out of acceptable ranges or an error has been detected);
identify (Claim 11: identifying, via one or more hardware processors,) said unit of equipment via an identifier provided by an input device, including at least one of a capacitive touchscreen, keypad, scanner, or camera, wherein said identifier is associated with said unit of equipment (¶ 46 wherein the personnel device includes a camera to scan a visual identifier associated with the equipment);
identify (Claim 11: identifying, via one or more hardware processors,) a service personnel to conduct the service update, […] (¶ 44, 45, 50, 51 wherein the system provides access to a plurality of different user types, e.g., first responders, emergency personnel, and a plurality of different technicians, based on their login credentials and proximity to the building that contains the equipment that needs to be serviced by technicians, as well as to see notes provided by other technicians, and equipment that first responders and emergency personnel need to locate, e.g., shut off locations, disconnects, and the like);
receive (Claim 11: receiving, via one or more hardware processors,) service confirmation, generated during a service event conducted at the unit of equipment, from said service personnel (¶ 46, 47, 48 wherein the system receives service confirmation from the service personnel by way of, at least, an image captured by the personnel while the personnel was at the location of the equipment that requires servicing);
verify (Claim 11: verifying, via one or more hardware processors,), prior to updating said impairment status, via the one or more hardware processors, the service personnel possesses [login credentials] for the specific type of service being performed (¶ 36, 51 wherein login information is stored to determine if provided login credentials are correct (i.e. match), which, in turn, determines that the user is authorized to access the system);
In regards to:
verify (Claim 11: verifying, via one or more hardware processors and geo-fencing enabled hardware including at least one of a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, Bluetooth interface or Wifi interface,), via the one or more hardware processors and geo-fencing enabled hardware, including at least one of a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, Bluetooth interface or Wifi interface, that the service personnel was physically present within a geo-fenced area associated with the unit of equipment during the service event and prior to updating the impairment status;
update (Claim 11: updating, via one or more hardware processors,) the impairment status of service associated with said unit of equipment, based at least in part on said [log-in credentials] of said service personnel and said service personnel being verified in the specified geo-fenced area associated with the unit of equipment, […]
(¶ 39, 44, 46, 47, 48, 56 wherein the system verifies that a particular personnel was at a particular location by determining that the personnel is in proximity of the property, utilizes the personnel’s location to guide them to the location of the equipment, and stores information of service dates, calibration records, pictures of equipment at the time of service, print updated service cards and/or visual identifiers, and any other updates (which can be performed in real-time), which are available for future personnel performing future servicing of the equipment, thereby providing the system with a confirmation that service was performed on the equipment and verifying the specific personnel who performed the servicing); and
provide (Claim 11: receiving, via one or more hardware processors,) updated impairment status […] (Fig. 1; ¶ 29, 48, 49 wherein the system receives equipment status information and transmits the information to a plurality of entities who can view and interact with the information via a dashboard, e.g., BMS (property owner) and central system that is monitoring and managing technicians to ensure that equipment is operating within range).
Minnier discloses a system and method of servicing equipment by providing a system that monitors the state of equipment, provides notifications/alerts when servicing is required, prioritizes alarms, maintains and tracks the location of equipment and technicians, and provides technicians with the necessary information to service the equipment and update its maintenance records (as well as include a variety of other information, as was discussed above). Despite Minnier providing all of the necessary information to facilitate the servicing of equipment, Minnier fails to explicitly disclose whether to verify the type of service to be performed, verify parts required to complete the service, and verify that the parts are in possession of the personnel.
To be more specific, Minnier fails to explicitly disclose:
identify (Claim 11: identifying, via one or more hardware processors,) a service personnel to conduct the service update, wherein said service personnel possesses necessary credentials required for the specific type of service being performed
verify (Claim 11: verifying, via one or more hardware processors,), prior to updating said impairment status, via the one or more hardware processors, the service personnel possesses a credential required for the specific type of service being performed
update (Claim 11: updating, via one or more hardware processors,) the impairment status of service associated with said unit of equipment, based at least in part on said credential of said service personnel and said service personnel being verified in the specified geo-fenced area associated with the unit of equipment, wherein the impairment status of the unit of equipment is updated only when both credential verification and location verification are successfully satisfied
provide (Claim 11: receiving, via one or more hardware processors,) updated impairment status of an authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) in real time
However, Thorley, which also discloses a system and method of managing assets and technicians at a location that includes the asset by tracking the location of an asset and technicians and having technicians take images of the asset, further teaches it would have been obvious to have the system verify, prior to performing servicing, whether the technician is qualified to perform the service. Thorley teaches that the system manages a plurality of technicians and jobs and determines whether a particular technician is first qualified to perform the job prior to the technician actually performing the job. Upon verifying that the technician is qualified to perform the job and is at the location of the job the system will allow for the next steps to completing the job to take place, e.g., allowing for the servicing process to proceed. Similar to Minnier, Thorley receives log-in information of a technician, but, unlike Minnier, performs the additional analysis of determining whether the technician is qualified to perform a particular service type. Thorley teaches that this, “…ensures that a certified technician works on the vehicle to comply with warranty requirements or safety regulations. If the technician is not authenticated/verified, then the vehicle service will not be allowed to proceed.” Thorley further teaches, “…should the service ecosystem 200 detect that the multi-point inspection will not be completed on time, it can assign another technician with the appropriate level of availability, certification and efficiency in order to load balance the service and to have it completed on time.”
(For support see: ¶ 14, 18, 29, 37, 43)
Finally, the Examiner refers to MPEP § 2111.05 as who the receiving party is supposed to be, i.e. Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), is directed towards descriptive subject matter that fails to further limit or alter the steps or functions of the claimed invention and its end result. That is to say, whether the entity is an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), the steps, functions, and end result of the claimed invention would be unaffected, i.e. the steps/functions of transmitting information is unaffected and serves to only describe a destination. The data identifying the entity as an “Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ)” is a label for the entity and adds little, if anything, to the claimed invention and, thus, does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., who the entity is supposed to be) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps/functions of the claimed invention does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, in terms of patentability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the technician and equipment service management system and method of Minnier to determine and verify that a service personnel possesses the necessary credentials to perform a job prior to allowing for the job to be performed, as taught by Thorley, because this “…ensures that a certified technician works on the vehicle to comply with warranty requirements or safety regulations. If the technician is not authenticated/verified, then the vehicle service will not be allowed to proceed.” Additionally, this facilitates for jobs to be completed in a timely manner by ensuring that a qualified personnel is performing the job because they would have the necessary experience to complete the job.
In regards to claims 2, 12, Minnier discloses a system and method of servicing equipment by providing a system that monitors the state of equipment, provides notifications/alerts when servicing is required, prioritizes alarms, maintains and tracks the location of equipment and technicians, and provides technicians with the necessary information to service the equipment and update its maintenance records (as well as include a variety of other information, as was discussed above). Despite Minnier providing all of the necessary information to facilitate the servicing of equipment, Minnier fails to explicitly disclose whether to verify the type of service to be performed, verify parts required to complete the service, and verify that the parts are in possession of the personnel.
To be more specific, Minnier fails to explicitly disclose:
the system of claim 1 (the method of claim 11), wherein said one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine readable instructions to:
verify (Claim 12: , via said one or more processors,) a type of service to be performed on said unit of equipment;
verify (Claim 12: , via said one or more processors,) one or more parts required to complete the type of service to be performed on said unit of equipment; and
verify (Claim 12: , via said one or more processors,) that said one or more parts required to complete the type of service to be performed on said unit of equipment are in possession by the service personnel;
However, Thorley, which also discloses a system and method of managing assets and technicians at a location that includes the asset by tracking the location of an asset and technicians, further teaches that it would have been beneficial to track the type of service, the parts required to perform the service, and whether the technician is in possession of the parts. Thorley teaches that the system identifies the availability of parts and resources, thereby providing a system and method that is tracking parts inventory, which, in turn, results in parts being removed since they are being used. Thorley teaches that this provides the benefit of more efficient servicing of an asset as this allows the system to identify what parts the technician will need and whether the parts are available and in the technician’s possession, thereby facilitating completion of the service. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include and track such information as this would allow the technician to perform the job that they have been assigned, preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building, which coincides with the goals and objectives that Minnier sets out to resolve (Minnier – ¶ 3, 4, 5).
(For support, see: Thorley – ¶ 16, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the equipment servicing system and method of Minnier with the ability to verify the type of service to be performed, verify parts required to complete the service, and verify that the parts are in possession of the personnel, as taught by Thorley, as this would result in preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building.
In regards to claims 3, 13, the combination of Minnier and Thorley discloses the system of claim 2 (the method of claim 12), wherein said one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine readable instructions to: remove the said one or more parts required to complete the type of service to be performed on said unit of equipment from an inventory of parts associated with said service personnel (Thorley – ¶ 16, 26, 32, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46 wherein a part that needs to be serviced is identified, availability of the part is determined, and the part is replaced and recorded.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the equipment servicing system and method of Minnier with the ability to verify the type of service to be performed, verify parts required to complete the service, and verify that the parts are in possession of the personnel, as taught by Thorley, as this would result in preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building.).
In regards to claims 4, 14, the combination of Minnier and Thorley discloses the system of claim 2 (the method of claim 12), wherein verifying that said one or more parts required to complete the service to be performed on said unit of equipment is completed via the one or more hardware processors analyzing data provided by the service personnel (Thorley – ¶ 45, 46 wherein the service, such as, but not limited to, part replacement, is determined to be completed and recorded
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the equipment servicing system and method of Minnier with the ability to verify the type of service to be performed, verify parts required to complete the service, and verify that the parts are in possession of the personnel, as taught by Thorley, as this would result in preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building.).
In regards to claims 5, 15, the combination of Minnier and Thorley discloses the system of claim 4 (the method of claim 14), wherein the data provided by the service personnel is one or more images of said one or more parts required to complete the services to be performed on said unit of equipment (Thorley – ¶ 16, 40, 41, 43 wherein service personnel provide images of the parts required to be serviced
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the equipment servicing system and method of Minnier with the ability to verify the type of service to be performed, verify parts required to complete the service, and verify that the parts are in possession of the personnel, as taught by Thorley, as this would result in preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building.).
In regards to claims 6, 16, the combination of Minnier and Thorley discloses the system of claim 5 (the method of claim 15), wherein analysis of the images of said one or more parts required to complete the services to be performed on said unit of equipment is performed via image analysis using a machine learning model trained on image data of said one or more parts (Thorley – ¶ 16, 17, 21, 27, 40, 41, 43 wherein image recognition software is used to identify a component that needs to be serviced and wherein diagnostic software is used and continuously updated using, at least, machine learning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the equipment servicing system and method of Minnier with the ability to verify the type of service to be performed, verify parts required to complete the service, and verify that the parts are in possession of the personnel, as taught by Thorley, as this would result in preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building.).
In regards to claims 7, 17, Minnier discloses the system of claim 1 (the method of claim 11), wherein said one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine readable instructions to:
receive (Claim 17: , via said one or more processors,) data associated with said impairment status of said unit of equipment (¶ 29 wherein equipment is monitored to determine if they are in need of repair or maintenance; ¶ 44, 47, 53, 55 wherein maintenance/servicing records for equipment are updated for use by future personnel); and
[…].
Minnier discloses a system and method of servicing equipment by providing a system that monitors the state of equipment, provides notifications/alerts when servicing is required, prioritizes alarms, maintains and tracks the location of equipment and technicians, and provides technicians with the necessary information to service the equipment and update its maintenance records (as well as include a variety of other information, as was discussed above). Despite Minnier providing all of the necessary information to facilitate the servicing of equipment, Minnier fails to explicitly disclose whether the technician can be provided with additional servicing information that the equipment is in need of.
To be more specific, Minnier fails to explicitly disclose:
generate (Claim 17: , via said one or more processors,) an additional service update on said unit of equipment, based at least in part on said data associated with said impairment status of said unit of equipment.
However, Thorley, which also discloses a system and method of managing assets and technicians at a location that includes the asset by tracking the location of an asset and technicians, further teaches that it would have been beneficial to utilize the information provided for the service and during the servicing of the asset to determine if additional services are needed or should be performed. Thorley teaches that this provides the benefit of more efficient servicing of an asset as this allows the system to more effectively service the asset by identifying and performing any and all jobs needed for the asset, as well as providing a customer with the opportunity to decide whether to perform the service at that time or at a time that would not be a bother for the customer, i.e. the task may not be of high priority or critical. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include and track such information as this would allow the technician to perform the job that they have been assigned, preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building, which coincides with the goals and objectives that Minnier sets out to resolve (Minnier – ¶ 3, 4, 5, 49).
(For support, see: Thorley – ¶ 16, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the equipment servicing system and method of Minnier with the identify and provide information regarding an additional service associated for the asset, as taught by Thorley, as this would result in preventing needless or inefficient dispatching of technicians by avoiding a scenario wasting time to arrive at a location and not have the necessary parts to perform their job, and prevent any unnecessary operations of the equipment/building, as well as providing a customer with the opportunity to decide whether to perform the service at that time or at a time that would not be a bother for the customer, i.e. the task may not be of high priority or critical.
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Minnier and Thorley discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine readable instructions to receive status information from said unit of equipment (Minnier – Fig. 1, 2; ¶ 29, 49 wherein the system receives and stores equipment status information, which can then be accessed by a technician to assist in servicing the equipment).
In regards to claims 9, 19, the combination of Minnier and Thorley discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine readable instructions to provide the status information from said unit of equipment to said service personnel (Claim 19: and AHJs and property owners.) (Minnier – Fig. 1; ¶ 29, 48, 49; Thorley – ¶ 14, 18, 29, 43 wherein the system receives equipment status information and transmits the information to a plurality of entities who can view and interact with the information via a dashboard, e.g., BMS (property owner) and central system that is facilitating communication with technicians (service personnel) and managers (AHJ) to provide equipment status information.).
Additionally, the Examiner refers to MPEP § 2111.05 as who the receiving party is supposed to be, i.e. Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and a property owner, is directed towards descriptive subject matter that fails to further limit or alter the steps or functions of the claimed invention and its end result. That is to say, whether the entity is an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and a property owner, the steps, functions, and end result of the claimed invention would be unaffected, i.e. the steps/functions of transmitting information to two different locations is unaffected, and serves to only describe a destination. The data identifying the entity as an “Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and a property owner” is a label for the entity and adds little, if anything, to the claimed invention and, thus, does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., who the entity is supposed to be) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps/functions of the claimed invention does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, in terms of patentability.
In regards to claims 10, 20, the combination of Minnier and Thorley discloses the system of claim 9 (the method of claim 19), wherein the status information from said unit of equipment is related to the impairment status of said unit of equipment (Minnier – ¶ 29 wherein equipment is monitored to determine if they are in need of repair or maintenance; ¶ 44, 47, 53, 55 wherein maintenance/servicing records for equipment are updated for use by future personnel).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Minnier and Thorley discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising receiving, via said one or more processors, status information from said unit of equipment (Minnier – Fig. 1, 2; ¶ 29, 49 wherein the system receives and stores equipment status information, which can then be accessed by a technician to assist in servicing the equipment).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretation has been withdrawn due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 112(b)
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 112(a)
The rejection under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is not improving technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, or deeply rooted in technology. The claimed invention is not controlling the operations or state of other technology, but updating an impairment status based on the collection and comparison of information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, in this case, should status information be updated. More specifically, the claimed information is receiving information associated with a technician and comparing it against known information to determine if they match (i.e. is the technician qualified to perform the service? Is the technician at the location of the asset to be serviced?) and, if they match, updating the status information. The claimed invention is directed towards steps that can be performed by humans, e.g., a first human contacting a second human, informing the second human that an asset requires servicing, the second human, via collection and comparison of information, verifying whether the first human is qualified or has the necessary credentials to perform the service, and the first human performing the service and updating the status of the asset. The invention is also directed towards the inspection of assets that are due for inspection by a qualified inspector.
The Examiner asserts that there is no technological improvement and has recited generic technology at a high level of generality and applying them to the abstract idea. The claimed invention is not improving GPS, Bluetooth, or Wi-fi technology, resolving an issue that arose in the technology, or deeply rooted in this technology, but utilizing the technology to provide information, in this case, location information. Moreover, the technology is not being utilized to determine if a user has the appropriate credentials and is simply reciting additional generic technology, i.e. hardware processors, to collect and compare credential information and, based on a rule(s), determine if the user is qualified to perform the service. There is no improvement to this technology, no issue is being identified and resolved, and the claimed invention is not deeply rooted in this technology.
Finally, the rejection does not rely on “well-understood, routine, and conventional”. Therefore, the Berkheimer requirement does not apply.
Rejection under 35 USC 102/103
The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are directed towards newly amended limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the newly submitted amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Gao et al. (CN 116228147 B); Jaggers et al. (US Patent 12,505,391 B2); Monovich et al. (US PGPub 2020/0210938 A1) – which disclose asset monitoring and service scheduling systems, as well as managing servicing personnel to allow for qualified personnel to service assets
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 GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 3/12/2026