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 . Claims 1-12 and 211-225 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. Applicant, on 06/16/2026, amended claims and added claim 225. Claims 1-12 and 211-225 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged. The amended claims overcome the 103 Rejections and is therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that claims as amended are not directed towards abstract ideas.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite the abstract concepts of at least an aggregation of inspection data, determining a facility event value, determining an event value, determining a geographic display boundary, and determining a navigation level all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper). Further the claims are directed towards “as a part of ongoing facility maintenance, to ensure proper operation, to avoid downtime due to failures, to determine whether maintenance or repair is indicated, and/or to comply with regulatory requirements. Aspects of the present disclosure provide for systems, methods, and apparatuses to provide integrated inspection information with the facility purpose, for example ongoing business operations of the business, which provide additional value for the inspection operations and data to support improved business outcomes, such as reduced maintenance costs, reduced repair costs, reduced downtime, improved operational outcomes, improved return on capital investment, and improved ancillary operations related to the facilities (e.g., supporting operations, future capacity planning, and/or coordination between facilities)” (See Specification, [84]) which falls under the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” – business relations.
Applicant contends at Step 2A-P2 that claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant asserts that claims recite inspection data analytics and visualization controls to generate concrete geographic user interface updates. Applicant further asserts that claims recite a particular technological workflow which results in an updated geographic display boundary and various other data.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements bolded above, are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant contends that the claims recite receiving particular inputs, applies statistical analysis, determines values, and updates the interface to display which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite various additional elements but are merely “apply it” on a general purpose computer. Further the claims do not recite any improvements to the technology nor do they include any meaningful limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, or when they integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant contends that the ordered hierarchy and navigation limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant asserts that the hierarchy navigation scheme comprising inspection data configured to enable user navigation through levels in an order based on a values results in a display update tied to the hierarchy and user’s navigation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The hierarchy scheme and navigation levels themselves are abstract concepts capable of being performed in the huma mind (i.e. via pen and paper), while the additional elements of graphical depiction and further display levels are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant points to the Specification at [108, 116, 115, 166-168, Fig. 24] asserting that the claimed features are directed to a graphical facility-inspection visualization architecture which provide updated geographic displays. Applicant further asserts that the claims receive communication through the UI, including overlay selection, statistical analysis selections, etc. and is not merely automating a human thought process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed towards the abstract idea identified below and applied to a general purpose computing device as evidenced by the Applicant’s Specification in at least [93]; “The example system includes a user device 110, such as a mobile device and/or a computing device (e.g., a terminal, laptop, desktop, etc.).”
Applicant contends at Step 2B, that the claims recite an ordered combination which implement facility visualization and planning. Applicant asserts that the claims recite meaningful limitations further pointing to the claim limitations. Applicant further asserts that the claims impose specific technological constraints on how data is processed, display is determined , and how it is visually represented.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are considered both individually as well as in combination and determined to be performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims do not recite any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05 (e)).
Applicant contends that the limitation are not insignificant extra solution activity.
Examiner finds the argument unpersuasive as the additional elements are not addressed as extra-solution activity.
Applicant contends that the ordered combination of elements supplies an inventive concept under Step 2B because it specifies how the platform receives user inputs, applies data analytics, determines values, determines a selected navigation level, etc. which transforms the abstract idea into a specific computer implemented system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The concepts of receiving user inputs through a UI and visually depicting updates are steps which are “apply it” on a general purpose computing device, while determining selected levels and values are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind.
The 101 Rejection is updated and maintained below.
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 1-12 and 211-225 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) 1-12 and 211-225 is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims 1 and 210 recite a series of steps for the abstract idea recited below.
Regarding Claims 1, (additional elements bolded)
A system, comprising: a facility visualization and planning platform comprising: a user interface component configured to implement a user interface to receive a visualization request value from user operations on the user interface, and to receive analytical review communications from the user operations on the user interface,
the analytical review communications including an overlay selection and a statistical analysis selection, wherein the overlay selection includes a selection of at least one of an anomaly overlay, an inspection event overlay, or a facility event overlay, and wherein the statistical analysis selection includes a selection of at least one of an outlier identification or an anomaly identification;
an inspection database comprising an aggregation of inspection data; and
a controller, comprising:
a facility planning circuit structured to interpret a user facility visualization value in response to the visualization request value;
a facility inspection data circuit structured to interpret the aggregation of inspection data in response to the user facility visualization value;
a facility monitoring circuit structured to:
determine, in response to the statistical analysis selection of the analytical review communications and the aggregation of inspection data, a facility event value for at least one component of at least one industrial facility, the facility event value comprising at least one of an inspection data anomaly value or an inspection data outlier value; and
determine an event display value for the at least one component in response to the facility event value;
a geographic depiction circuit structured to:
determine, in response to the user facility visualization value and the aggregation of inspection data, a geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation for the at least one industrial facility within the geographic display boundary
wherein the hierarchical inspection presentation comprises a hierarchy determined from the inspection data and including a plurality of navigation levels,
wherein the hierarchical inspection presentation further comprises a hierarchy navigation scheme including the navigation levels and navigation operations that allow a user to provide a hierarchy selection value through the user interface, wherein the navigation operations include at least one of:
a selection operation comprising selection of a boundary, a region, a facility, or an equipment, the selection operation being performed via a selectable user-interface element including an icon, a text name, a dedicated navigation icon, or a notification icon; or a search-based navigation operation comprising a text entry or a selection of a search result,
wherein the hierarchy navigation scheme includes an inspection-data-determined triage hierarchy configured to enable user navigation through the navigation levels in an order based on at least one of the facility event value, an impact of the facility event value, an urgency associated with the facility event value, or a severity associated with the facility event value;
determine a user geographic display value in response to the geographic display boundary and the hierarchical inspection presentation;
wherein the user geographic display value is determined further in response to the selected navigation level, the overlay selection, and the event display value,
wherein the user geographic display value comprises a geographic region for depiction, at least one relevant facility or equipment for depiction, and the event display value, and wherein the event display value corresponds to the facility event value at the selected navigation level and comprises at least one of a facility event indicator, a component event indicator, a color selection, a text notification, or an event type indicator; and
wherein the user interface component is further structured to provide the user geographic display value to the user interface as an updated user geographic display value,
wherein the updated user geographic display value causes the user interface to visually depict, within the geographic display boundary and at the corresponding geographic position, the event display value for the selected navigation level, the event display value being visually depicted according to the overlay selection and the statistical analysis selection.
Regarding Claims 211,
A method, comprising: implementing a user interface for a facility visualization and planning platform, and receiving a visualization request value from user operations on the user interface;
receiving analytical review communications from the user operations on the user interface, the analytical review communications including an overlay selection and a statistical analysis selection, wherein the overlay selection includes a selection of at least one of an anomaly overlay, an inspection event overlay, or a facility event overlay, and wherein the
statistical analysis selection includes a selection of at least one of an outlier identification or an anomaly identification;
interpreting a user facility visualization value in response to the visualization request value;
interpreting an aggregation of inspection data in response to the user facility visualization value;
determining, in response to the statistical analysis selection of the analytical review communications and the aggregation of inspection data, a facility event value for at least one component of at least one industrial facility, the facility event value comprising at least one of an inspection data anomaly value or an inspection data outlier value;
determining an event display value for the at least one component in response to the facility event value;
determining a geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation for at least one industrial facility positioned the geographic display boundary in response to the user facility visualization value and the aggregation of inspection data,
wherein the hierarchical inspection presentation comprises a hierarchy determined from the inspection data and including a plurality of navigation levels,
wherein the hierarchical inspection presentation further comprises a hierarchy navigation scheme including the navigation levels and navigation operations that allow a user to provide a hierarchy selection value through the user interface,
wherein the navigation operations include at least one of: a selection operation comprising selection of a boundary, a region, a facility, or equipment, the selection operation being performed via a selectable user-interface element including an icon, a text name, a dedicated navigation icon, or a notification icon; or a search-based navigation operation comprising a text-entry operation or a selection of a search result,
wherein the hierarchy navigation scheme includes an inspection-data-determined triage hierarchy configured to enable user navigation through the navigation levels in an order based on at least one of the facility event value, an impact of the facility event value, an urgency associated with the facility event value, or a severity associated with the facility event value,
determining, in response to the hierarchy selection value provided through the navigation operations, a selected navigation level of the navigation levels and a geographic position corresponding to the selected navigation level;
determining a user geographic display value in response to the geographic display boundary and the hierarchical inspection presentation,
wherein the user geographic display value is determined further in response to the selected navigation level, the overlay selection, and the event display value,
wherein the user geographic display value comprises a geographic region for depiction, at least one relevant facility or equipment for depiction, and the event display value, and
wherein the event display value corresponds to the facility event value at the selected navigation level and comprises at least one of a facility event indicator, a component event indicator, a color selection, a text notification, or an event type indicator; and
providing the user geographic display value to the user interface as an updated user geographic display value,
wherein the updated user geographic display value causes the user interface to visually depict, within the geographic display boundary and at the corresponding geographic position, the event display value for the selected navigation level, the event display value being visually depicted according to the overlay selection and the statistical analysis selection.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards an aggregation of inspection data, determine a geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation for at least one industrial facility positioned within the geographic display boundary in response to the user facility visualization value and the aggregation of inspection data; and determine a user geographic display value in response to the geographic display boundary and the hierarchical inspection presentation all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Further the claims are directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards “as a part of ongoing facility maintenance, to ensure proper operation, to avoid downtime due to failures, to determine whether maintenance or repair is indicated, and/or to comply with regulatory requirements. Aspects of the present disclosure provide for systems, methods, and apparatuses to provide integrated inspection information with the facility purpose, for example ongoing business operations of the business, which provide additional value for the inspection operations and data to support improved business outcomes, such as reduced maintenance costs, reduced repair costs, reduced downtime, improved operational outcomes, improved return on capital investment, and improved ancillary operations related to the facilities (e.g., supporting operations, future capacity planning, and/or coordination between facilities)” (See Specification, [84]).
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least the additional elements bolded above. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim(s) 2-12, 212-223, and 225, the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously addressed in the independent claims. (i.e. receiving… from/on a user interface, providing…. display value to the user interface; etc.).
Regarding Claim(s) 224, the claim recites the additional element of omit display on the user interface of certain types of facilities or equipment and/or limit the display on the user interface to facilities or equipment having an issue. This elements is: omit display on the user interface of certain types of facilities or equipment and/or limit the display on the user interface to facilities or equipment having an issue.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art
Claims 1-12 and 211-225 , though directed to non-statutory subject matter, are deemed to define over the currently known prior art under 35 USC 102 and 103. Examiner interprets based upon the claim limitations that there is no currently known prior art that discloses the features relating to: “an inspection database comprising an aggregation of inspection data; and a controller, comprising: a facility planning circuit structured to interpret a user facility visualization value in response to the visualization request value; a facility inspection data circuit structured to interpret the aggregation of inspection data in response to the user facility visualization value; a facility monitoring circuit structured to: determine, in response to the statistical analysis selection of the analytical review communications and the aggregation of inspection data, a facility event value for at least one component of at least one industrial facility, the facility event value comprising at least one of an inspection data anomaly value or an inspection data outlier value; and determine an event display value for the at least one component in response to the facility event value; a geographic depiction circuit structured to: determine, in response to the user facility visualization value and the aggregation of inspection data, a geographic display boundary and a hierarchical inspection presentation for the at least one industrial facility within the geographic display boundary. wherein the hierarchical inspection presentation comprises a hierarchy determined from the inspection data and including a plurality of navigation levels, wherein the hierarchical inspection presentation further comprises a hierarchy navigation scheme including the navigation levels and navigation operations that allow a user to provide a hierarchy selection value through the user interface, wherein the navigation operations include at least one of: a selection operation comprising selection of a boundary, a region, a facility, or an equipment, the selection operation being performed via a selectable user-interface element including an icon, a text name, a dedicated navigation icon, or a notification icon; or a search-based navigation operation comprising a text entry or a selection of a search result, wherein the hierarchy navigation scheme includes an inspection-data-determined triage hierarchy configured to enable user navigation through the navigation levels in an order based on at least one of the facility event value, an impact of the facility event value, an urgency associated with the facility event value, or a severity associated with the facility event value; determine a user geographic display value in response to the geographic display boundary and the hierarchical inspection presentation; wherein the user geographic display value is determined further in response to the selected navigation level, the overlay selection, and the event display value, wherein the user geographic display value comprises a geographic region for depiction, at least one relevant facility or equipment for depiction, and the event display value, and wherein the event display value corresponds to the facility event value at the selected navigation level and comprises at least one of a facility event indicator, a component event indicator, a color selection, a text notification, or an event type indicator; and wherein the user interface component is further structured to provide the user geographic display value to the user interface as an updated user geographic display value,
wherein the updated user geographic display value causes the user interface to visually depict, within the geographic display boundary and at the corresponding geographic position, the event display value for the selected navigation level, the event display value being visually depicted according to the overlay selection and the statistical analysis selection”
The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Known Prior Art (patent)
US 20210060782 A1
APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING AN INTERACTIVE INSPECTION MAP
US 20120271673 A1
Systems and Methods for Facility Management and Maintenance Tracking
US 11868937 B1
Automatic troubleshooting of clustered application infrastructure
US 11364943 B1
System and method for strategic track and maintenance planning inspection
US 20160117059 A1
User Interface for Fleet Management
US 20240112100 A1
SYSTEM, METHOD, AND APPARATUS TO INTEGRATE INSPECTION DATA AND BUSINESS ANALYSIS
US 20200311055 A1
ISSUE TRACKING SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A CONFIGURABLE PROJECT HIERARCHY
US 20230015134 A1
Image-Based Analytics of Supply Chain Optimization Problems
US 12572374 B1
System and method of objective-driven intelligent navigation
Known Prior Art (NPL)
Y. Shi, Y. Liu, H. Tong, J. He, G. Yan and N. Cao, "Visual Analytics of Anomalous User Behaviors: A Survey," in IEEE Transactions on Big Data, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 377-396, 1 April 2022,
Known Prior Art (foreign)
WO2020018711A1
Graphical user interface system
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights