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 are currently pending. 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 1-15 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 1-15 , 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; executing the method to determine the cause occurrences of the machine; and displaying the fault tree information of the machine, the acquired status information, and the determined cause occurrence for the machine. These limitations taken together recite processes that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper (e.g., a person 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 —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). 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)). 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 ), 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 ¶¶ 0050, 73 describing the element 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 -2, 6-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0195184 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892). As per claim 1, Maeda teaches a maintenance work support system for supporting maintenance work on a machine, comprising: a memory (¶ 0198) , configured to: manage fault information, cause information, information regarding how to identify cause occurrences, and recovery method information, as fault tree information of the machine (¶ ¶ 0203 , 208 ) ; an interface configured to acquire status information of the machine (¶ 0205) ; and a processor (¶ 0198) configured to: process the status information for one or more of external status information or internal status information (¶¶ 0 100, 139-140, 205) ; determine a method to identify a cause occurrence of the machine from the processed external status information or the internal status information of the machine (¶¶ 0116-117, 140) ; execute the method to determine the cause occurrences of the machine (¶¶ 0090, 140) ; and display the fault tree information of the machine, the acquired status information, and the determined cause occurrence for the machine (¶¶ 0 195, 198-199) . As per claim 2, Maeda teaches claim 1 as above. Maeda further teaches a camera connected to the interface, wherein the external status information comprises video or images of the machine captured by the camera of the machine, wherein the method to identify the cause occurrence of the machine is based on the external status information (¶¶ 0214-216) . As per claims 6-7, Maeda teaches a method for supporting maintenance work on a machine, comprising: steps implementing the functions of analogous claims 1-2 (see citations above). As per claims 11-12, Maeda teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium, storing instructions for supporting maintenance work on a machine, the instructions comprising: steps implementing the functions of analogous claims 1-2 (see citations above). 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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 3-5. 8-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, et al., in view of Miyazaki, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0182482 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892) . As per claims 3, 8, and 13, Maeda teaches claims 1, 6, and 11 as above. Maeda further teaches the processor is configured to determine the method to identify the cause occurrence based on the information regarding how to identify the cause occurrence (¶¶ 0085, 104-108) . Maeda does not explicitly teach the information regarding how to identify the cause occurrence comprising information regarding pre-work to be performed before status collection, and the external status information or the internal status information to be used to determine completion of the pre-work ; which is taught by Miyazaki (¶¶ 0051, 64). (Examiner notes that the definition of "pre-work" in the Specification reads on the worker in Miyazaki placing the defective product on a table in order to work on it with a specified tool; see Miyazaki ¶¶ 0021-25 and Published Specification ¶ 0036 ( "Pre-work involves work that is required to conduct the collection and inspection (e.g., need to open the door of the machine to inspect the machine internally). ) " ). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Miyazaki—namely, to ensure that workers are following the proper procedure. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of maintenance activities. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results. As per claims 4, 9, and 14, Maeda in view of Miyazaki teaches claims 3, 8, and 13 as above. Maeda further teaches the processor is configured to control the interface to acquire the status information of the machine to determine the method to identify the cause occurrence of the machine, wherein the processor executes the method to determine the cause occurrence of the machine (¶¶ 0085, 104-108). Miyazaki further teaches the processor determines the completion of the pre-work based on the cause occurrences from the execution of the method (¶¶ 0051, 64; see also ¶¶ 0021-25 the worker placing the defective product on a table in order to work on it with a specified tool) ; which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claims 3, 8, and 13 above . As per claims 5, 10, and 15, Maeda in view of Miyazaki teaches claims 3, 8, and 13 as above. Miyazaki further teaches the status information used to determine the completion of the pre-work is differs from the status information used to determine the method to identify the cause occurrences (¶¶ 0051, 64—camera data of a worker's movements; which is different from the sensor and other status information in Maeda; see ¶ 0205); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claims 3, 8, and 13 above . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Liggesmeyer , et al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,017,080 (Reference C of the attached PTO-892) relates to maintenance work support. Ushioda , et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,305,426 (Reference D of the attached PTO-892) relates to maintenance work support. Cheriere , et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0274991 (Reference E of the attached PTO-892) relates to maintenance work support. Grier, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0095230 (Reference F of the attached PTO-892) relates to maintenance work support. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1366 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Shannon Campbell can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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