DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 were previously pending. Claims 1, 6, and 11 were amended, and new claims 16-18 were added in the reply filed August 11, 2026. Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
"Applicant submits that these features are not a mental process and integrate any judicial exception into a practical application. The automatic initiation of data collection in response to a verified pre-work completion determination is a machine-control operation that cannot be performed mentally or with pen and paper. As explained in the specification, 'the required motor current statistics include the motor current rise when the motor rotation starts, so the system cannot acquire data if the data collection is started manually.' As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0055]. This describes time-critical data that physically cannot be captured by manual initiation, demonstrating that the claimed automatic triggering provides a concrete technical improvement rather than merely automating an abstract concept." Remarks, 8.
These features are not recited in the claims, which instead recite the much broader "initiating, in response to the determination that the pre-work has been completed, collection of second status information of the machine." Moreover, "merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas." Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
"Furthermore, the cross-pairing of internal and external status information for the completion check and the subsequent data collection provides an additional technical benefit. As the specification explains, '[t]he data source for each is set as opposite (e.g., completion check by external machine data, collection/inspection by internal machine data) ... [a]pplying such a combination can eliminate some faults related specifically to the internal status or external status, such as acquisition system failure or device failure.' As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0056]. This cross-type pairing eliminates specific failure modes in the acquisition system, which is an improvement to the functioning of the maintenance work support system itself." Remarks, 9.
This limitation is part of the abstract idea. "Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…" MPEP 2106.04(d) II. (emphasis added). "It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement." MPEP 2106.05(a).
"New claims 16-18 recite additional technical features directed to a camera focused on the machine that captures video or images, wherein the processor directly processes the video or images to determine cause occurrence at a node of the fault tree information such that traversal of the fault tree is performed independently of technician judgment. The specification explains that 'the system can eliminate the amount of storage consumed by the system by directly processing the picture and/or movie data, which may otherwise cause a system delay and requirement more storage space for processing.' As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0051]. This direct processing reduces storage consumption and system delay, which constitutes an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself." Remarks, 9.
There is not sufficient technical explanation for why this is an improvement to the computer itself. "The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology." MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the data could be processed either locally or remotely in a routine fashion via the generic computers recited. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's amendments and arguments (see Remarks, 10) are persuasive and the rejections made under §§ 102(a)(1) and 103 are withdrawn. The amended limitations are not taught by the closest art of record (cited in the prior action and below) in any reasonable combination.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-18, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including:
managing fault information, cause information, information regarding how to identify cause occurrences, and recovery method information, as fault tree information of the machine;
acquiring status information of the machine;
processing the status information for one or more of external status information or internal status information;
determining a method to identify a cause occurrence of the machine from the processed external status information or the internal status information of the machine;
wherein the information regarding how to identify the cause occurrence comprises information regarding pre-work to be performed before status collection and identifies first status information of the machine to be used to determine completion of the pre-work;
determining, from the first status information acquired that the pre-work has been completed;
initiating, in response to the determination that the pre-work has been completed, collection of second status information of the machine;
executing the method to determine the cause occurrences of the machine using the collected second status information; and
displaying the fault tree information of the machine, the acquired status information, and the determined cause occurrence for the machine,
wherein one of the first status information and the second status information is the internal status information of the machine and the other of the first status information and the second status information is the external status information of the machine.
These limitations taken together recite processes that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper (e.g., a technician observing machine status, evaluating it, and arriving at a judgment on cause occurrences in relation to a fault tree).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content (electrical power grid metrics), then displaying the results, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content (machine fault status), then displaying the results; University of Florida Research Foundation v. GE Company, 916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)—collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data, which also characterizes the invention).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (memory, processor, interface, non-transitory computer readable medium, broadly performing steps "automatically"—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there, e.g., by broadly performing steps "automatically"). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (memory, interface, processor, non-transitory computer readable medium—see published Specification ¶¶ 0061-62, 68 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements 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 conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the same abstract idea identified above without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (i.e., generic computer and interface). Claims 2, 7, and 12 add a camera, however this is generically recited and is merely used for extra-solution data-gathering activities (i.e., capturing video or images of the machine, which is subsequently used in the fault status analysis—see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Similarly, claims 16-18 recite capturing, by a camera focused on the machine, video or images of the machine and directly processing the video or images as acquired from the camera, such that traversal of the fault tree information is performed independently of technician judgment of the external status information. Using a camera to capture images is generically recited and is merely used for extra-solution data-gathering activities as above. With respect to traversal of the fault tree information being performed independently of technician judgment of the external status information, this merely recites automation of a known manual activity at a high level via a generic processor. As such, it only sets forth a general link to a technological environment with instructions to automate the abstract idea. See also Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (mere automation of manual processes does not confer eligibility).
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above (i.e., a camera, traversal of the fault tree information is performed independently of technician judgment), these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above (see ¶¶ 0046, 50, 73 describing the elements at a high level of generality and without appreciable technical specifics). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Williams, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,516,025 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892) relates to maintenance work support and fault trees.
Schwartz, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0318837 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892) relates to maintenance work support and fault trees.
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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
