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 .
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Below is an analysis in accordance with the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Process found in MPEP 2106(III).
Claim 1: A power receiving and distributing equipment management device comprising processing circuitry
to acquire individual inspection items corresponding to a plurality of devices arranged in equipment,
to extract an inspection item common to some of the plurality of devices as a common inspection item from among the acquired individual inspection items, and generate integrated inspection items by integrating the extracted common inspection item and one or more of the individual inspection items,
to acquire integrated inspection results corresponding to the generated integrated inspection items, and
to record the acquired integrated inspection results in association with the individual inspection items corresponding to the integrated inspection items.
Step 1: The claim recites a device. A device is an apparatus. Thus, the claim is to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Limitation (a) in claim 1 recites “acquire individual inspection items corresponding to a plurality of devices arranged in equipment”. Limitation (b) in claim 1 recites “extract an inspection item common to some of the plurality of devices as a common inspection item from among the acquired individual inspection items, and generate integrated inspection items by integrating the extracted common inspection item and one or more of the individual inspection items”. Limitation (c) in claim 1 recites “acquire integrated inspection results corresponding to the generated integrated inspection items”. As is evident from applicant’s disclosure, the claimed steps (a)-(c) fall into the “Mental Processes” group of abstract ideas because the recited steps are observations (acquire individual inspection items corresponding to a plurality of devices arranged in equipment in step (a) and acquire integrated inspection results corresponding to the generated integrated inspection items in step (c)) and evaluations (extract an inspection item common to some of the plurality of devices as a common inspection item from among the acquired individual inspection items, and generate integrated inspection items by integrating the extracted common inspection item and one or more of the individual inspection items in step (b)) that are simple enough that they can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid to help them complete the recited calculation or observation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses general purpose computer as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional elements: limitation (d) “record the acquired integrated inspection results in association with the individual inspection items corresponding to the integrated inspection items” and “processing circuitry” to perform limitations (a)-(d). Limitation (d) represents mere data outputting (recording the acquired integrated inspection results) that is necessary for the use of the recited judicial exception. Accordingly, elements (d) is insignificant extra-solution activity. The “processing circuitry” element is merely a generic processor which is recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, the processing circuitry is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. As explained previously, element (d) represents mere data outputting, which is extra-solution activity and for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. The “processing circuitry” is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Examiner takes official notice that processors were well-known and conventionally used before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to analyze input data and generate output data based on the input data. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Claims 2-5 are merely just extensions or variations of the judicial exception, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art [AAPA], in view of Takahashi et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0194502 [Takahashi].
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 5, AAPA discloses a power receiving and distributing equipment management device comprising processing circuitry to:
acquire individual inspection items corresponding to a plurality of devices arranged in equipment [an operator checks inspection items, such as appearance, abnormal smell and temperature, that have been set for each device in a power receiving and distributing equipment site, paragraph 0002],
to acquire inspection results corresponding to the inspection items [the operator checks inspection items, such as appearance, abnormal smell and temperature of the devices, paragraph 0002], and
to record the acquired inspection results in association with the individual inspection items [the operator records the results of the checked inspection items, paragraph 0002].
AAPA does not disclose extracting an inspection item common to some of the plurality of devices as a common inspection item from among the acquired individual inspection items, generating integrated inspection items by integrating the extracted common inspection item and one or more of the individual inspection items, and acquiring and recording inspection results corresponding to the generated integrated inspection items. Like AAPA, Takahashi discloses an inspection system in which inspections are performed according to list of inspection items for devices. Takahashi recognizes that overlapping in the inspection system may occur when common inspection items are inspected more than once [paragraph 0004]. To prevent unnecessary overlapping, Takahashi discloses generating integrated inspection items by identifying common inspection items between a part inspection and a completed vehicle inspection, acquiring inspection results for the integrated inspection items and recording the inspection results [paragraphs 0025, 0031, 0037, 0041, 0071, 0088 and 0089]. An inspector views the recorded results of the integrated inspection items during the completed vehicle inspection and skips inspection of inspection items which were assessed as good, thus preventing unnecessary overlapping for inspections for common inspection items [paragraphs 0088 and 0089]. Since it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify common inspection items and prevent overlapping of inspections of the common inspection items based on acquired associated inspection results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Takahashi teachings to the AAPA inspection system in order to allow for more efficient inspections by preventing unnecessary overlaps in inspection item inspections [Takahashi, paragraphs 0004 and 0088].
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi further discloses that the processing circuitry acquires information indicating relationships between the devices in the equipment, and associates the devices in the acquired information with the devices corresponding to the individual inspection items [the part inspections of inspection items in the part inspection stage for a particular vehicle are associated with part inspections of inspection items in the completed vehicle inspection stage for the vehicle, paragraphs 0037,0071, 0088 and 0089].
Regarding claim 3, AAPA and Takahashi are silent as to how the associations between the devices is performed. Applicant’s specification, paragraph 0017, recites that the associations in the claimed invention may be performed by a user or by machine learning. The machine learning recited in Applicant’s specification is a recitation to merely generic machine learning as there is no further mention of the specific type of machine learning or specifically how the machine learning is used to perform the data analysis to generate the associations. Examiner takes official notice that the concept and advantages of using machine learning to perform detection of data associations was well known and expected in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use conventional machine learning in the AAPA and Takahashi inspection system to determine the associations between the devices in order to reduce time required to perform the data analysis and reduce inaccuracies in the data analysis that could occur due to human error.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lavrov et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2015/0193735 discloses optimizing inspections performed in the field by generating intuitive inspection graphical user interfaces.
Merat et al., US Patent no. 5,465,221 discloses eliminating redundant inspection measurement requests by identifying merging inspection measurement requests that may be performed from a single pass over inspection points on a surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL B YANCHUS III whose telephone number is (571)272-3678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 March 7, 2026