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 FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #18/421,459, filed on 06/22/2026.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 5 and 12 have been cancelled by the applicant.
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 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 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 wherein each of the one or more index values represents a severity level of an environmental factor, receiving a third set 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, wherein the recommended actions include at least one of removing a component of the asset, repairing a component of the asset, or replacing a component of 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 of one of the three types. 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 of one of three types. 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. The additional elements added by amendment include “normalizing, by the first computer system, the localized environmental data.” 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. Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that, absent further detail, it is old and well known at the time of filing of the application to normalize data using a computer. Therefore, the normalization of the localized environmental data 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. The additional elements added by amendment include “normalizing, by the first computer system, the localized environmental data.” However, this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and is considered conventional computer functioning, and the examiner takes Official Notice that, absent further detail, it is old and well known at the time of filing of the application to normalize data using a computer. Therefore, the normalization of the localized environmental data 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 3-4 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 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 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 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 § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Chiaramonte, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0147412 A1 in view of Myers, et al., Patent No. 7,191,064 B1.
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])
normalizing, by the first computer system, the localized environmental data (see Figure 55 and [0541]-[0542])
generating, by the first computer system, one or more index values based on the normalized localized environmental data (see Figure 5 and [0168])
a severity level of an environmental factor (see [0112]-[0114] and [0469]-[0476])
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]) wherein the recommended actions include at least one of removing components of the asset, repairing components of the asset, or replacing components of the asset (see [0345])
Chiaramonte, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein each of the one or more index values represents a severity level of an environmental factor
Myers teaches:
wherein each of the one or more index values represents a severity level of an environmental factor (see Claim 6 and Column 7, line 41-Column 8, line 47 in which the index values used in the risk analysis represent severity levels of environmental factors)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine Myers with Chiaramonte because Chiaramonte already teaches using index values and calculating severity levels of environmental factors in determining the health of an asset and the use of a model, and generating index values for the severity levels would allow for better use of a model by standardizing the data into index values for better analysis of the health of the asset.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Chiaramonte and Myers teaches:
the method of claim 1
Chiaramonte further teaches:
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, the combination of Chiaramonte and Myers teaches:
the method of claim 1
Chiaramonte further teaches:
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, the combination of Chiaramonte and Myers teaches:
the method of claim 1
Chiaramonte further teaches:
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 work scope of tasks to repair, replace, or maintain the asset is implemented based on the future health prediction by the model)
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Chiaramonte and Myers teaches:
the method of claim 1
Chiaramonte further teaches:
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, the combination of Chiaramonte and Myers teaches:
the method of claim 1
Chiaramonte further teaches:
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, the combination of Chiaramonte and Myers teaches:
the method of claim 1
Chiaramonte further teaches:
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, the combination of Chiaramonte and Myers teaches:
the method of claim 1
Chiaramonte further teaches:
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, the combination of Chiaramonte and Myers teaches:
the method of claim 1
Chiaramonte further teaches:
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, the combination of Chiaramonte and Myers teaches:
the method of claim 1
Chiaramonte further teaches:
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 13, the combination of Chiaramonte and Myers teaches:
the method of claim 1
Chiaramonte further teaches:
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, the combination of Chiaramonte and Myers teaches:
the method of claim 1
Chiaramonte further 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, the combination of Chiaramonte and Myers teaches:
the method of claim 1
Chiaramonte further teaches:
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 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 Myers, et al., Patent No. 7,191,064 B1 and in further view of Martinez, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0177856 A1.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Chiaramonte and Myers teaches:
the method of claim 5
Chiaramonte and Myers, 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 and Myers 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 Myers, et al., Patent No. 7,191,064 B1 and in further vie of Official Notice.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Chiaramonte and Myers 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 and Myers, 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 and Myers 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, Myers, 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])
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101:
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 7 of the response that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but to “generating a health assessment of an asset based on index values associated with environmental data and location data, which is a technical problem in asset management and predictive maintenance”:
The examiner points out that the claims in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis are determined to RECITE an abstract idea, not be directed to an abstract idea. Further, “asset management” is not considered a technical problem and “predictive maintenance” in the claims is not actually performed on a technical level, the claims output a recommendation. Further, “generating a health assessment of an asset” is not considered in the claimed invention to be a technical solution or technical improvement or solving a technical problem, but is using a computer to make a determination and recommendation.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on pages 7-8 of the response that normalizing of the environmental data and generating index values is a specific technical transformation of environmental data rather than generic data processing:
The examiner disagrees when it comes to the Step 2A and Step 2B analyses. Normalizing data is a well-known conventional computer activity in regards to data, and the claims do not improve the technical field of normalizing data. Generating index values likewise is part of generic data processing and storage. The fact they are for specifically environmental data or severity values does not change this determination.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 8 of the response that the claims are directed to a practical application as they “represent a technical solution to a technical problem of enabling accurate health assessment analysis while preserving location privacy:
The examiner points out that the health assessment analysis involves steps that only automate a common mental analysis of data or a common analysis of assets by business owners and managers. The fact that the data is normalized, which can even be done manually, and that index values are generated does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it uses know and not improved data management techniques such as normalization and generation of index values, which are considered the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. They do not lead to an “improvement in the computer itself, another technology, or the technical field” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 8 of the response that the claims recite specific technical features including calculating localized environmental data using a neural network or algebraic equation, and these specific technical features provide technical specificity beyond simply “apply it” and cannot practically be performed in the human mind:
First of all, the examiner points out that being “practically performed in the human mind’ is a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis in which it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea. This does not mean that each and every element in the claims must be able to be performed in the human mind. That is what the Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B analyses are for. Further, the “mental process” determination was only the secondary determination in the 101 rejection above under the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis.
Further, s already laid out above, conventional or generic computer functioning can in fact be present even if the steps cannot be performed in the human mind. The examiner points the applicant to Court decisions such as OIP Techs v Amazon.com and buySAFE v Google in which entire systems such as e-commerce systems that include multiple interaction components are included as limitations in the claims, but the Courts still found that the claims recited and were directed to an abstract idea and are therefore patent ineligible. As far as the use of a neural network, the examiner points the applicant to the 2024 and 2025 PEG Updates regarding AI and machine learning and to Example 47 of the USPTO Eligibility examples in which even claims that recite several steps that claim the training and use of a machine learning model at a broad level are considered patent ineligible as the claims should include either a detailed step-by-step set of limitations as to how the machine learning model is being trained or used or have a clear practical technical application. In claim 1, the only mention of any kind of neural network or model is “performing a health assessment…USING an analytical model….” Therefore, the examiner does not consider this sufficient.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is sustained.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 102
The arguments have been considered in light of the amendments to the claims, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103
Regarding the traversal of Official Notice
Regarding the applicant’s traversal of Official Notice, it was stated in reference to claims 19 and 20, while the Official Notice was for claim 17. However, for the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner puts forth the following prior art references as evidence for the use of Official Notice in the rejection of claim 17: Hall, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0035455 A1 at [0003]-[0004], Dong, Patent No. 9,418,493 B1 at Column 8, lines 27-50, Jang, et al., Patent No. 9,533,773 B1 at Summary section, and Rogers, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0089907 A1.
All other arguments have been considered in light of the amendments to the claims, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights