DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to amendment filed 2/18/2026.
2. Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10-12, 15, 19, 22-24 are pending.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 19
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following limitations in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 19 are not adequately supported by the original disclosure and hence rejected as new matter:
“industrial assets”
Examiner finds no mention of “industrial assets” in the original specification or drawings. Applicant is therefore requested to either provide clear support for the above limitations in the original disclosure or else cancel the new matter.
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, 2, 5, 8, 10-12, 15, 19, 22-24
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10-12, 15, 19, 22-24 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 1: Claims 1-9, 22, 23 are directed to a method; claims 10-20, 24 are directed to system – each of which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
Independent claims 1 and 10 recite the limitations – receiving metadata comprising identifiers corresponding to a plurality of assets; identifying a plurality of asset instances; receiving data characterizing the aspect of each asset; mapping asset management applications to corresponding asset; generating unified model of the plurality of assets; determining, based on the unified model, one or more inferences about the first asset, including cost avoidance metrics; generating a graphical user interface including a first portion of selectable list of assets a second portion displaying a plurality of visual representations of asset management applications mapped to a first asset; receiving a selection of a first visual representations withing the second portion of the GUI and launching a web application corresponding to the selected visual representation – that constitute a combination of abstract ideas – Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”).
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to – generating a list of assets, generate a second unified model, aspects of the asset, and asset metadata – that also constitute Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, the claims recite a combination of judicial exceptions.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e)
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Additional elements recited by the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: data processor of an asset monitoring system; a computing system including at least one processor and a memory; asset management applications; first, second and third graphical user interfaces (GUI); application programming interfaces (API); web application. Examiner finds that any additional element(s), beyond the judicial exception, has been recited at a high level of generality such that the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The combination of additional elements – receiving, identifying, generating, determining, displaying, launching – does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than “use the computer as a tool” and/or “link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas – receiving metadata comprising identifiers corresponding to a plurality of assets; identifying a plurality of asset instances; receiving data characterizing the aspect of each asset; mapping asset management applications to corresponding asset; generating unified model of the plurality of assets; determining, based on the unified model, one or more inferences about the first asset, including cost avoidance metrics; generating a graphical user interface including a first portion of selectable list of assets a second portion displaying a plurality of visual representations of asset management applications mapped to a first asset; receiving a selection of a first visual representations withing the second portion of the GUI and launching a web application corresponding to the selected visual representation – that merely uses generic computers as tools. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. Indeed, nothing in claim 1 improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[W]e have held that claims directed to a single display of information collected from various sources are abstract.”);
Hence, the additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B: In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components, which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept.
When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – receiving metadata comprising identifiers corresponding to a plurality of assets; identifying a plurality of asset instances; receiving data characterizing the aspect of each asset; mapping asset management applications to corresponding asset; generating unified model of the plurality of assets; determining, based on the unified model, one or more inferences about the first asset, including cost avoidance metrics; generating a graphical user interface including a first portion of selectable list of assets a second portion displaying a plurality of visual representations of asset management applications mapped to a first asset; receiving a selection of a first visual representations withing the second portion of the GUI and launching a web application corresponding to the selected visual representation – into significantly more.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019].
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
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, 2, 5, 8, 10-12, 15, 19, 22-24
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10-12, 15, 19, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy et al. (US20220198565) in view of Calvo et al. (US20130031462A1).
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
receiving, by at least one data processor of an asset monitoring system, metadata corresponding to a plurality of industrial assets, wherein the metadata comprises a plurality of unique identifiers corresponding to the plurality of industrial assets;
(See Krishnaswamy: Para [01016] (“An asset descriptor includes, for example, an asset name, an asset identifier, an asset level and/or other information associated with an asset.”)
identifying, based on the unique identifier of the plurality of unique identifiers, a plurality of instances of each industrial asset of the plurality of industrial assets within a plurality of disparate asset management applications based on the unique identifier, wherein the plurality of asset management applications are each configured to manage one or more aspects of a plurality of aspects of the first asset;
(See Krishnaswamy: Para [01016] (“the data aggregation component 304 groups data from the asset data 314 based on corresponding identifiers (e.g., a matching asset hierarchy level, a matching asset, a matching connected building, etc.) for the asset data 314”)
receiving, by the at least one data processor, from the plurality of asset management applications, data characterizing the plurality of aspects of first asset via a plurality of application programming interfaces (APIs) configured to communicatively couple the asset monitoring system to the plurality of asset management applications;
(See Krishnaswamy: Para
[0107] (“In one or more embodiments, a metric (e.g. a KP metrics) consists of aspect data indicative of an aspect employed in a model to map an attribute to the metric (e.g., an operating power asset type attribute is mapped to a duty aspect, etc.)”)
[0146] (“FIG. 13 illustrates a system 1300 according to one or more described features of one or more embodiments of the disclosure. In one or more embodiments, the system 1300 is employed to produce a structured query for a data API based on a natural language query.”)
mapping, by the at least one data processor based on the metadata, the data received from the plurality of disparate asset management applications to a corresponding industrial asset of the plurality of industrial assets;
(See Krishnaswamy: Para
[0048] (“In various embodiments, data associated with one or more assets is ingested, cleaned and aggregated to provide aggregated data. Furthermore, in various embodiments, one or more metrics are determined from the aggregated data to provide opportunity and/or performance insights for the assets.”)
[0058] (“In various embodiments, metrics associated with a second asset hierarchy level (e.g., a site level) includes metrics that influence a target goal (e.g., availability, energy, performance, quality). In various embodiments, metrics associated with a third asset hierarchy level (e.g., a plant level) includes identification of undesirable actor assets that influences targeted goal OEE.”)
[0107] (“mapping of attributes for the asset data”)
[0112] (“In one or more embodiments, the metrics engine component 306 determines the one or more metrics for the asset hierarchy based on a model related to a time series mapping of attributes for the asset data 314. For example, in one or more embodiments, the metrics engine component 306 determines the one or more metrics for the asset hierarchy based on time series mapping of attributes for the asset data 314 with respect to the centralized control database 318.”)
generating, in real-time, by the by at least one data processor, a unified model of the plurality of industrial assets including the data characterizing the plurality of aspects of the each industrial asset of the plurality of industrial assets from the plurality of asset management applications, wherein the unified model comprises a single virtual representation of each industrial asset of the plurality of industrial assets that integrates a plurality of asset management data streams from the plurality of disparate asset management applications;
(See Krishnaswamy: Para [0054] (“In various embodiments, an extensible object model is employed to provide automated display of real-time properties and trends related to service cases into tabular and graphical displays. Additionally or alternatively, in various embodiments, an extensible object model is employed to provide automated generation and display of equipment schematic diagrams and configurations using standard or modular diagrams populated by model data.”)
determining, by the at least one data processor, based on the unified model, one or more inferences about each industrial asset of the plurality of industrial assets including cost avoidance metrics determined based on the data characterizing the plurality of aspects of each industrial asset of the plurality of industrial assets from the plurality of disparate asset management applications;
(See Krishnaswamy: Para [0061] (“In one or more embodiments, the dashboard visualization allows a user to see how one or more assets are performing against one or more metrics (e.g., one or more KPIs). In one or more embodiments, the dashboard visualization allows a user to identify what next steps with respect to assets will provide an optimal return on investment for the action (e.g., repair device # 1 vs. device #2) depending on the metrics (e.g., fixing device # 1 will save X % energy, whereas repairing device # 2 will save $Y). In one or more embodiments, the dashboard visualization allows a user to view individual assets through the dashboard (e.g., boiler # 1 is operating at 90% efficiency, or will fail in X weeks, Y days, Z hours unless action is taken; and repairing the boiler # 1 within a first interval of time will save $X, whereas repairing within a second interval of time will save $Y). In one or more embodiments, the dashboard visualization allows a user to change individual settings for an asset remotely. In one or more embodiments, the dashboard visualization notifies a user that changing settings for an asset from X to Y will save X % energy or $Y.”)
generating, by the at least one data processor, a first graphical user interface (GUI) of the unified model, wherein the first GUI includes a first portion displaying a selectable list of the plurality of industrial assets and a second portion displaying a plurality of selectable visual representations of the plurality of asset management applications mapped to a first industrial asset of the plurality of industrial assets, each of the plurality of selectable visual representations depicting one or more of the plurality of aspects of the first industrial asset, and a visual representation of the cost avoidance metrics;
(See Krishnaswamy: Para [0058] (“In various embodiments, a dashboard visualization across various user identities is provided via a templated dashboard model using, for example, an extensible object model. In various embodiments, a dashboard visualization for a particular user identity (e.g., a maintenance is reported at various hierarchy levels such as an enterprise level, a site level, a plant level, a unit level (e.g., an asset level), etc.”)
displaying the first GUI within a user interface display;
(See Krishnaswamy: Para [0059] (“In one or more embodiments, a user-interactive graphical user interface is generated. For instance, in one or more embodiments, the graphical user interface renders a visual representation of the dashboard visualization. In one or more embodiments, one or more notifications for user devices are generated based on metrics associated with one or more assets at different levels in a hierarchy of assets.”)
receiving a selection of a first visual representation of the plurality of selectable visual representations within the second portion of the GUI; and
(See Krishnaswamy: Para [0144] (“FIG. 11 illustrates a system 1100 according to one or more described features of one or more embodiments of the disclosure. The system 1100 illustrates an operator workflow facilitated via a dashboard visualization, in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. At step 1102, a grouped and/or prioritized alert list is presented via a dashboard visualization for review. At step 1104, one or more alerts from the grouped and/or prioritized alert list is selected for review.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above noted disclosure of Krishnaswamy as it relates to managing a portfolio of assets to include the above noted disclosure of Hart as it relates to mobile management of industrial asset. The motivation for combining the references would have been to provide a mobile interface for reviewing asset alerts.
Krishnaswamy describes but does not specifically disclose:
“launching a web application of a first disparate asset management application corresponding to the selected first visual representation in the context of the first industrial asset.”
However, Calvo discloses this limitation.
(See Calvo: Para [0038] (“An example of such a user interface is shown in FIG. 8A and in FIG. 8B. Alternative user interfaces presenting such icons is also shown in FIGS. 9 and 10. When a user selects one of those icons, this will cause the corresponding application in the set of applications 103 to launch if not previously launched and will cause that application to be front most.”)
[0040] (“Further, the wrapper application will cause all other executing applications to be at least partially hidden or obscured, however, those other applications can, in one embodiment, still remain executing with a saved context and data. So, for example, if a user was entering contact data for a new personal contact and decided, while entering that data to switch to the calendar application or the email application, that new data and the context of that data will remain saved while it is hidden at least partially and those hidden applications continue to execute with the saved context and data, including the context of the text input focus and position of the last input as well as the user data entered. In one embodiment, this may extend even to modal dialogue boxes presented within the last executed application such that the state of those modal dialogue boxes is retained while the application is not front most within the same single web browser window. Also in operation 315, the set of icons presented by operation 311 will also be removed so that the user, in one embodiment, sees only the second application or second app while the other apps are at least partially hidden.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above noted disclosure of Krishnaswamy as it relates to managing a portfolio of assets to include the above noted disclosure of Calvo as it relates to web application architecture. The motivation for combining the references would have been to provide a wrapper application for displaying list of assets on an icloud environment.
Claim 10 is similar to claim 1 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 2:
wherein the plurality of asset management applications comprise any of a performance monitoring application, a condition monitoring application, a reliability monitoring application, a strategy management application, an analytics application and a work management application.
(See Krishnaswamy: Para [0050], [0055], [0056])
Claim 11, 19 are similar to claim 2 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 5:
receiving a selection a second industrial asset of the plurality of industrial assets within the list displayed in the first portion of the GUI; and
(See Krishnaswamy: Para [0152] – [0156])
generating, in real-time, by the at least one data processor, a second plurality of selectable visual representations of the plurality of asset management systems mapped to the second industrial asset within the second portion of the GUI, each of the second plurality of selectable visual representations depicting one or more of the plurality of aspects of the second industrial asset, and a second visual representation of the cost avoidance metrics.
(See Krishnaswamy: Para [0050], [0052], [0061], [0100])
Claim 15 is similar to claim 5 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 8:
metadata for each industrial asset of the plurality of industrial assets further comprises data characterizing a site of the industrial asset, and a system that the industrial asset is a component of.
(See Krishnaswamy: Para [0052], [0053])
Claim 19 is similar to claim 8 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 22:
wherein the plurality of aspects of each industrial asset of the plurality of industrial assets include information regarding any of asset performance, asset condition, asset reliability, asset strategy, asset analytics and asset work management.
(See Krishnaswamy: Para [0050], [0061])
Claim 23:
wherein the list displayed in the first portion of the GUI is organized hierarchically based on the sites of each industrial asset of the plurality of industrial assets and the systems that the industrial assets are components of.
(See Krishnaswamy: Para [0052], [0061], [0100])
Claim 24:
wherein the list displayed in the first portion of the GUI is organized hierarchically based on the sites of each industrial asset of the plurality of industrial assets and the systems that the industrial assets are components of.
(See Krishnaswamy: Para [0058], [0059])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
The applicant argues that the claims provide an improvement to the technical field of asset monitoring, by providing “an integrated model for holistic asset management, integrating assets under management that are traditionally managed using disparate systems into individual representations of the assets into single virtual representations.” The applicant argues, citing para [0027] of the specification, that the limitations – receiving asset metadata, identifying each asset, mapping data from application to asset, and generating unified model – integrates into a practical application and that this integration is achieved by referencing underlying source systems without exposing their inherent complexities, enabling a user to access all relevant information regarding an individual asset and the capabilities of the referenced disparate source systems, without switching context across siloed applications, an advantage which is explicitly reflected in the claims, as discussed above.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claimed limitations recite a combination of abstract ideas that are not sufficient to integrate into a practical application. As per para [0027], the systems and methods described herein eliminate the problem that arises when users have to rely siloed applications for managing different aspects of the asset (e.g., asset condition, asset strategy/reliability techniques, asset analytics, etc.). Examiner notes that siloing of data, as best understood from the specification, refers to storing data in different sections or compartments or folders which is a data organization method or protocol that is not even a problem. For example, a filing cabinet can store data pertaining to a plurality of assets in multiple folders based on classification. The specification does not describe the nature of the “problem” that arises when users have to rely on siloed applications. There are no examples in para [0027] of what constitutes “switch context across different application representations.” In fact, the specification does not even provide any illustrative embodiments of the types of assets management by the system – whether they are tangible assets like machinery or intangible assets like intellectual property.
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Interval Licensing is instructive here.
[T]he instructions limitations are for either collecting a second data set or controlling the order and timing of when to display the collected second data set, not for how to engineer or program the display of the second data set in a way that does not interfere with the first data set, wherever that first data set may exist on a screen. Although the claims include “display instructions,” those instructions are simply for “displaying the image” generated from the acquired content, and have no bearing on how to display the “image” in a section of the screen that is unused. Moreover, acquiring and organizing information, as broadly recited by some of the instructions limitations, is an abstract idea, not an improvement in how computers and networks carry out their basic functions.
Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335-1345, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Similarly here, “[i]nstead of claiming a solution for producing that result, the claim in effect encompasses all solutions.” Examiner thus notes that the graphical user interface (GUI) recited in the claims is merely a tool in the service of the abstract idea of displaying an asset from a plurality of assets which is merely constitutes collecting data, analyzing it and presenting the results. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem.”) (“The claims of the ‘999 patent do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists traders in processing information more quickly”); Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, ’556 patent at 2:26-39, not on improving computers or technology.”). Therefore, to assert that the claims enable a user to access relevant asset information without switching context across siloed application is merely an attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. See MPEP 2106.05 (f)(1).
Previously Addressed Arguments
Applicant asserts that the claims are directly analogous to the subject matter in Core Wireless.
Examiner disagrees because the Core Wireless invention was deemed to be a technical improvement to GUI for small screens, whereas the present invention is more akin to Trading Technologies in that it merely presents asset information on a generic GUI.
In Core Wireless the Federal Circuit decided that the claims, by reviewing the specification, disclosed an improved user interface for electronic devices, particularly those with small screens. Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363. The Court found that the specification explained that because small screens “tend to need data and functionality divided into many layers or views,” prior art interfaces required users to drill down through many layers to get to desired data or functionality. Id. (citing Spec. 1:29-30). The disclosed invention improved the efficiency of using the electronic device by bringing together “a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data,” which can be accessed directly from the main menu. Id. (citing Spec. 2:55-59). Displaying selected data or functions of interest in the summary window allows the user to see the most relevant data or functions “without actually opening the application up.” Id. (citing Spec. 3:53-55). The speed of a user’s navigation through various views and windows is improved because it “saves the user from navigating to the required application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated.” Id. (citing Spec. 2:35-39). Rather than paging through multiple screens of options, “only three steps may be needed from start up to reaching the required data/functionality.” Id. (citing Spec. 3:2-3). The Court found that this language clearly indicated that the claims were directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens. Id.
A close look at the drawings in Core Wireless (US8434020B2) brings out the vivid contrast with the present application.
PNG
media_image1.png
1036
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
From the Core Wireless Specification:
As an example, the main view may be an Application Launcher for several applications such as ‘Messages’, ‘Contacts’, ‘Calendar’ and ‘Phone’. The Application Launcher view is then presented as a standard scrolling list of application names with appropriate application icons next to them. The list is vertical and only one application is presented per line. Standard highlight functions apply in that when the Application Launcher view is opened the highlight defaults to the first item in the list of applications. This is shown in FIG. 1, in which the screen display 1 includes a list of applications (‘Messages’; ‘Contacts’; ‘Calendar’; and ‘Phone’), including a highlighted ‘Messages’ at 2. Alternatively, the highlight may default to the middle item in the list of applications. At this point, the user may take conventional navigation steps, such as scrolling, to move the highlight and using the available select function to navigate to the required highlighted application.
The innovative summary window functionality can be accessed as follows: should the highlight rest on the name of an application in the App Launcher for a certain amount of time (say a 1.2 second timeout), the summary window (the “App Snapshot”) drops down from the highlight bar. The App Snapshot for any given application is a window which includes commonly requested data associated with that application and links to common functionality in that application. The App Snapshot is shown at 3 in FIG. 2; it includes the number of new messages (‘0’) and links to the two most common functions (as defined by the system designer, or selected by the user, or learned by the device) in the Messages application —‘Create Messages’ and ‘Enter chat room’. In FIG. 3, a slightly longer App Snapshot is shown, indicating at 4 that there are ‘2 new SMS’ messages and ‘1 Chat Ongoing’. Other selection processes could also be used (e.g. voice activation, softkey selection etc) to access the App Snapshot. For example, the App Snapshot may be ‘called’ or ‘fired’ by using a right scroll function (if the mobile telephone has 4-way scrolling capacity); a press and hold of the select function when an application name is highlighted; or using a right cursor key on a highlighted application name.
As can be seen from the above description of the functionality, the Core Wireless invention is fundamentally directed to obtaining a high-level summary information of the contents of applications displayed on an interface. Fig.1 shows an App Launcher interface that displays a list of applications – Messages, Contacts, Calendar, Phone with a highlight function resting on the Messages app. If the highlight stays on the name of the application for 1.2 seconds, an App Snapshot window opens up showing commonly requested functionality associated with that app, e.g., 0 new messages, Create message, and Enter chat room – as shown in Fig. 2. In Fig. 3, a slightly longer App Snapshot – 3 new unread mail, 2 new SMS, 1 chat ongoing – is shown.
From the Core Wireless decision:
The asserted claims in this case are directed to an improved user interface for computing devices, not to the abstract idea of an index, as argued by LG on appeal.3 Although the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices. Claim 1 of the ’476 patent requires “an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu,” specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed. The claim further requires the application summary window list a limited set of data, “each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application.” This claim limitation restrains the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window. Finally, the claim recites that the summary window “is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state,” a requirement that the device applications exist in a particular state. These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer. Like the improved systems claimed in Enfish, Thales, Visual Memory, and Finjan, these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.
In stark contrast to the above functionality, applicant’s invention merely displays asset data without offering anything that that is even remotely comparable to the highlight function, app snapshot, and summary window features of Core Wireless
PNG
media_image2.png
528
832
media_image2.png
Greyscale
There is simply nothing in applicant’s Fig. 2 and specification that is remotely comparable to the highlight function, app snapshot, and summary window features of Core Wireless. For example, as per para [0026] of the specification, using traditional systems, it can be difficult to get a holistic representation of the asset within a single system, and the user must switch between multiple systems or applications to access the particular asset representation and relevant capabilities of the asset. As per para [0027], the systems and methods described herein eliminate the problem that arises when users have to rely siloed applications for managing different aspects of the asset (e.g., asset condition, asset strategy/reliability techniques, asset analytics, etc.). However, Examiner notes that this has nothing to do with size of interfaces or the visibility of information on a small screen. Moreover, siloing of data, as best understood from the specification, has to do with storing data in different sections or compartments which is completely different from displaying a list of commonly used functions as in Core Wireless. Applicant’s specification does not set forth any particular inventive method that can be considered comparable to displaying a limited list of common functions of Core Wireless. There is no feature in the present invention that is analogous to conveying “3 unread emails” and “2 new SMS” of Core Wireless. There is no comparable application summary window with limited set of data. There is no indication or assertion that the applicant has achieved an advance in the field of graphical user interfaces or even interfaces for small screen computing devices as in Core Wireless.
The Federal Circuit, in Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) addressed Appellant’s Core Wireless argument.
Relying principally on Core Wireless, TT argues the claimed invention provides an improvement in the way a computer operates. We do not agree. The claims of the ’999 patent do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists traders in processing information more quickly.
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
Similarly, here Examiner notes that the pending claims do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, the pending claims recite displaying a web application of asset metrics such as total risk, cost avoidance, etc., on a GUI screen (Fig. 2) that may assist in asset management. Whereas Core Wireless provides improvement in small screen computing devices, the present invention, at best, provides information related to asset management review and performance. Unlike Core Wireless, which allowed users to see the relevant data in a “summary window” without having to open the application, the instant application merely lists asset data and does not provide an improvement to a computer or display data from unlaunched applications.
Instead, “[l]ike Electric Power, purported advance in applicant’s invention ‘is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions.’” IBG II, 921 F.3d at 1385 (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354). The purported inventive aspects of claim 1 are in the information provided, not in how the method technologically achieves the results. See Interval Licensing LLC, 896 F.3d at 1345 (“[T]he instructions limitations are for either collecting a second data set or controlling the order and timing of when to display the collected second data set, not for how to engineer or program the display of the second data set in a way that does not interfere with the first data set, wherever that first data set may exist on a screen.”).
Here, a generic GUI displays asset information corresponding to visual representation of the first asset. The GUI does not allow a user to access functions/applications or associated data from a menu or similar feature. Instead, the GUI presents the results of the data collection, analysis, and calculations in a generic window with no improvement to computers or GUIs. Displaying results of data collection and analysis in a generic display does not improve computers, GUIs, or technology. See SAP, 898 F.3d at 1163; Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354;
See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.”).
For the above reasons, applicant’s attempts to analogize the present invention are found to be wholly unpersuasive.
Previously Addressed Arguments
Applicant argues that the claimed steps cannot be performed in the mind.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that an analyst may view and identify an asset from a list of assets printed on a piece of paper or from a paper folder.
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) III. MENTAL PROCESS (“The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed “conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally,” i.e., “as a person would do it by head and hand.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of “translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit” are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims “read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper”). Mental processes performed by humans with the assistance of physical aids such as pens or paper are explained further below with respect to point B.
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.”)
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the steps – generating a unified model, determining one or more inferences – can be accomplished in the mind or using pencil and paper. The steps – generating a first GUI of a unified model, launching a web application of a disparate asset management system – can be easily carried out by drawing the unified model or a list of assets on a piece of paper.
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) III. C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process
(“3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.”)
As in the case of Intellectual Ventures, there is nothing in the claims that forecloses them from being performed by a human mentally with pencil and paper. As in Mortgage Grader, the asset management concept recited in the claims can be performed by humans without a computer.
Examiner further notes that the limitation of inferences about cost avoidance metric based on data characterizing aspects of first asset involves Fundamental Economic Practices and/or Commercial/Legal Interactions and hence also falls under the abstract idea category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Applicant argues that the claims improve the functioning of asset management system by providing an integrated model of an asset that is traditionally managed by disparate system and allowing the user to launch underlying source systems without exposing their inherent complexities.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive because, selecting an asset from a list of assets is as simple as picking out a paper document from a folder of printed documents or selecting a folder from stack of folders in a filing cabinet.
The claimed limitations do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer devices, do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field; (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation. See MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). Hence, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (“Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more.”).
103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8, 10-12, 15,19, 22-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692