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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FIRST, NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION for Application #18/421,459, filed on 01/24/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, the claims are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claims 1 and 19 claims a method, or process. A process is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 20 claims a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore the medium is interpreted as an article of manufacture. An article of manufacture is a statutory category for patentability. Further, the claim is in conformity with the Kappos Memorandum of 2010 regarding medium claims, as it includes the phrase “non-transitory.”
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims recite an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims are directed towards an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claims 1, 19, and 20 recite “receiving a first set of data including environmental data, receiving a second set of data including operating data having an operation time and location from the asset, calculating localized environmental data from the first set of data and the second set of data, generating one or more index values based on the localized environmental data, receiving a third det of data comprising operational data of the asset, performing health assessment of the asset using an analytical model, based on the one or more index values, and the third set of data, to estimate a health of the asset, determining a future health or condition of the asset based on the estimated health of the asset, and outputting recommendation actions to perform maintenance to the asset. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, namely “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, the claims recite “commercial interactions, business relations.” The claims describe analysis of three data points to estimate the health of an asset and a future condition or health of an asset and recommend corresponding maintenance. The claims simply automate these steps using a computer. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, namely “commercial interactions, business relations.” The claims secondarily recite a mental process. A professional could mentally analyze of three data points and use an analytical algorithmic model to estimate the health of an asset and a future condition or health of an asset and recommend corresponding maintenance. Therefore, the claims secondarily recite a mental process.
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the independent claims include “a first computer system,” “a second computer system.” However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). Therefore, these additional elements are not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims also recite “using an analytical model.” However, this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and is considered a generic recitation of a technical element and the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea. The use of the analytical model includes no detail whatsoever as to what the steps in its use are, how the model was trained, or any other type of detail. Therefore, the use of the analytical model is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements of the independent claims include “a first computer system,” “a second computer system.” However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). Therefore, these additional elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims also recite “using an analytical model.” However, this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and is considered a generic recitation of a technical element and the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea. The use of the analytical model includes no detail whatsoever as to what the steps in its use are, how the model was trained, or any other type of detail. Therefore, the use of the analytical model is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim is still considered to be directed to an abstract idea as the claim steps in the ordered combination simply recite the logical steps for receiving the data sets, performing an analysis and calculations, and making a recommendation. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more.
When considering the dependent claims, claims 2 and 7-8 are considered part of the abstract idea, as the origin of the environmental data, absent further technical detail, as at present the claims only describe what the source of the data is or what kind of data it is, does not change the analysis. Claims 3-5 are considered part of the abstract idea, as adjusting operating parameters or performing preventative maintenance, absent further positively recited technical detail, is considered part of the outputting of a recommendation action. Claims 6 and 9 are considered part of the abstract idea, as the type of time or location data or operational data, absent further detail, does not change the analysis. Claims 10 and 13 are considered to be recited at a high level of generality and is considered a generic recitation of a technical element and the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea., and is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea part of the abstract idea. The use of the analytical model includes no detail whatsoever as to what the steps in its use are, how the model was trained, or any other type of detail other than what it is used for. Claims 11, 14, and 17 recite the two computer systems being distinct and either ground or portable devices (claim 11) and the first computer system being located on the asset (claim 14). However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). Therefore, these additional elements are not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 12 is considered part of the abstract idea, as normalization and generation of values can be done as part of the business relation or mental process. Claim 15 is considered part of the abstract idea. The performing of the steps “by the analytical model” is recited at a high level of generality and is considered a generic recitation of a technical element and the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea., and is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea part of the abstract idea. Claim 16 is considered part of the abstract idea, as matching of assets based on the data is part of a business relation or mental process. Claim 18 is considered conventional computer functioning and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts for a device to share data with another device without revealing location information.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Chiaramonte, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0147412 A1.
Regarding Claims 1, 19, and 20, Chiaramonte teaches:
A method (medium) of generating a health assessment of an asset based on one or more index values associated with environmental data and location data, the method comprising:
receiving, by a first computer system, a first set of data including environmental data (see Figure 3, [0174], and [0451] in which inputs to the system include environmental data)
receiving, by the first computer system, a second set of data including operating data having an operating time and location data from the asset (see [0451] which teaches at 434 operational data; see also [0175] which teaches time and location data as an input)
calculating, by the first computer system, localized environmental data from the first set of data and the second set of data (see Figures 5-6 and [0201]-[0202])
generating, by the first computer system, one or more index values based on the localized environmental data (see Figure 5 and [0168])
receiving, by a second computer system, the one or more index values from the first computer system (see [0312]-[0318], especially [0312] and [0318])
receiving, by the second computer system, a third set of data comprising operational data of the asset (see [0318])
performing health assessment of the asset, by the second computer system, using an analytical model, based on the one or more index values, and the third set of data, to estimate a health of the asset (see [0312]-[0318])
determining, by the second computer system, a future health or condition of the asset based on the estimated health of the asset (see [0312]-[0318] in which a future health or life expectancy for the asset can be determined by the model)
outputting, by the second computer system, recommended actions to perform maintenance to the asset (see at least Figures 28 and 31, [0321]-[0322], [0345] and [0349])
Regarding Claim 2, Chiaramonte teaches:
the method of claim 1
wherein the environmental data includes data from satellite remote sensing, air quality databases, from individual local sensors at specific geographical areas, or from weather or geological models, or any combination thereof (see Figure 3 and [0174])
Regarding Claim 3, Chiaramonte teaches:
the method of claim 1
adjusting operating parameters of the asset in order to extend remaining useful life to avoid reliability issues based on the future health or the condition of the asset (see [0345])
Regarding Claim 4, Chiaramonte teaches:
the method of claim 1
performing preventive maintenance on the asset in order to extend remaining useful life to avoid reliability issues based on the future health or the condition of the asset (see at least [0345] in which a workscope of tasks to repair, replace, or maintain the asset is implemented based on the future health prediction by the model)
Regarding Claim 5, Chiaramonte teaches:
the method of claim 1
wherein recommending actions to perform maintenance of the asset comprises removing components of the asset, repairing components of the asset, replacing components of the asset, or any combination thereof (see [0345])
Regarding Claim 6, Chiaramonte teaches:
the method of claim 1
wherein the operating time comprises a date or a time, or both, of operation of the asset, and the location data comprises a latitude location and a longitude location of the asset (see at least [0175])
Regarding Claim 7, Chiaramonte teaches:
the method of claim 1
wherein the environmental data is associated with a given location of the asset and a given time of the asset or environmental exposure induced locally by the asset and the environmental data is obtained from satellite remote sensing, air quality databases, or from individual sensors at specific geographical areas, weather data, or geological models, or any combination thereof (see Figure 3, [0174]-[0175], and [0345])
Regarding Claim 8, Chiaramonte teaches:
the method of claim 1
wherein the environmental data comprises physical or chemical elements or contaminants, or particulate matter, or any combination thereof (see [0174]-[0175], and [0345])
Regarding Claim 9, Chiaramonte teaches:
the method of claim 1
wherein the operational data of the asset comprises physical sensors data, control input data, or any combination thereof (see Figures 1-2, [0120]-[0122], [0135]-[0138], and [0452])
Regarding Claim 10, Chiaramonte teaches:
the method of claim 1
wherein the analytical model is part of a health management system for the asset, or the analytical model is configured to evaluate a current health or condition of the asset, or both (see Figure 26B and [0312])
Regarding Claim 11, Chiaramonte teaches:
the method of claim 1
wherein the first computer system is distinct and separate from the second computer system, and the first computer system or the second computer system, or both, are ground-based computer systems or portable devices (see at least Figure 3 #305)
Regarding Claim 12, Chiaramonte teaches:
the method of claim 1
normalizing the localized environmental data and generating the one or more index values after normalizing of the localized environmental data (see Figure 55 and [0541]-[0542])
Regarding Claim 13, Chiaramonte teaches:
the method of claim 1
wherein performing the health assessment of the asset, by the second computer system, using the analytical model, based on the one or more index values, and the third set of data to estimate the health of the asset, comprises predicting, using the analytical model, the future health or condition of the asset (see [0312]-[0319])
Regarding Claim 14, Chiaramonte teaches:
wherein the first computer system is located on the asset (see Figure 2 and [0137]-[0138] in which the asset monitoring system, and AWGS are directly wired to the sensors and other components of the system and are therefore “ on the asset”)
generating, by the first computer system, the one or more index values based on the localized environmental data, is performed at the asset (see Figure 2 and [0137]-[0138] in which the asset monitoring system, and AWGS are directly wired to the sensors and other components of the system and are therefore “ on the asset”)
Regarding Claim 15, Chiaramonte teaches:
the method of claim 1
wherein performing the health assessment of the asset, by the second computer system, using the analytical model, based on the one or more index values, and the third set of data to estimate the health of the asset, comprises determining a remaining amount of useful life or a remaining usable service capability of the asset (see [0312]-[0318])
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiaramonte, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0147412 A1 in view of Martinez, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0177856 A1.
Regarding Claim 16, Chiaramonte teaches:
the method of claim 5
Chiaramonte, however, does not appear to specify:
using the remaining amount of the useful life of the asset to match the asset with other assets having a similar remaining amount of useful life, for asset aggregation
Martinez teaches:
using the remaining amount of the useful life of the asset to match the asset with other assets having a similar remaining amount of useful life, for asset aggregation (see at least [0017]-[0018])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Martinez with Chiaramonte because Chiaramonte already teaches prediction of future asset health based on historical data, and using aggregated similar data would allow for better health prediction of the asset based on more highly similar asset data.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiaramonte, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0147412 A1 in view of Official Notice.
Regarding Claim 17, Chiaramonte teaches:
the method of claim 1
wherein the first computer system is associated with a first entity and the second computer system is associated with a second entity different from the first entity (see Figure 3 #305 and [0150]-[0152])
Chiaramonte, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the first entity is a high-net-worth operator, a commercial operator, or a military operator
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the commerce and industrial arts for an operator entity associated with mechanical and other assets to be a commercial, military, or high net worth operator. Companies such as Rayonair, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Caterpillar, the US Military, and others have been such entities for decades.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine wherein the first entity is a high-net-worth operator, a commercial operator, or a military operator with Chiaramonte because Chiaramonte already teaches assets such as large-scale machinery and equipment and using remote sensor data and other data to determine asset health, and companies such as the military and commercial operators can afford such equipment and often use them in the field for weeks, months, and years and therefore predicting health of those assets is important because of their expense and their high use.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Chiaramonte and Official Notice teaches:
the method of claim 17
Chiaramonte further teaches:
wherein the first entity provides the one or more index values to the second entity without the first entity needing to reveal location information of the asset to the
second entity (see [0168])
Conclusion
The following prior art references were not relied upon in this office action but are considered pertinent to this application:
Dong, et al., Patent No. 10,534,359 B2- teaches a trained model to predict future maintenance needs for large assets
McClintic, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0078695 A1- reference by same assignee which teaches management of a fleet of large remote assets and ascertaining repair and maintenance needs of the remote assets and scheduling of maintenance
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626