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 CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4 – 6, 8 – 10 have been amended via preliminary amendments.
Claims 2, 3, 7 have been cancelled.
Claims 11 – 23 have been added.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4 – 6, 8 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 15 recites the limitation "receive, via at least one element of the user interface, a user selection of at least one of selected machine identifiers, selected machine locations, selected machine component categories, selected severity levels, selected aftermarket servicing leads, or selected dates" (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claims never recite that the aforementioned information were previously selected or of the information themselves.
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, 8 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
receive an aftermarket servicing lead, associated with the machine, generated based on at least one of operating hours of the machine, historical data associated with one or more components of the machine, a predicted lifespan of the one or more components of the machine, or a manufacturing date of the machine;
receive a fault code from the machine,
receive a fluid test result for the machine;
receive inspection data determined based on an inspection of the machine; and
generate, based on the aftermarket servicing lead, the fault code, the fluid test result, and the inspection data, a service report associated with the machine;
generate, based on the service report, the servicing schedule for the machine;
receive fault diagnosis data, associated with the aftermarket servicing lead, indicating faults of at least one of the one or more components;
determine a correlation between the fault diagnosis data and at least one of the fault code, the fluid test result, or the inspection data; and
assign a priority for the servicing schedule based on the correlation; and
present data associated with at least one of the service report or the servicing schedule,
receive, via at least one element of the user interface, a user selection of at least one of selected machine identifiers, selected machine locations, selected machine component categories, selected severity levels, selected aftermarket servicing leads, or selected dates; and
filter the data presented in the user interface based on the user selection
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of the collection and comparison of information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, in this case, managing the maintenance of a machine based on collected and analyzed (compared) information associated with the machine and determining (based on a rule(s)) how to manage its maintenance, which corresponds to both “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, e.g., having a user observe the condition of a machine, mentally compare or think about the observations and expected performance, and, based on the analysis, determine how to proceed with maintenance and writing up a service report, as well as collecting and comparing information, in this case, correlating data with other information, as well as human activities, in this case, assigning a priority based on the correlation, which also encompasses collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule(s), identify options and descriptive subject matter, in this case, describing the information that the aftermarket servicing lead is based on.
The limitations of:
receive an aftermarket servicing lead, associated with the machine, generated based on at least one of operating hours of the machine, historical data associated with one or more components of the machine, a predicted lifespan of the one or more components of the machine, or a manufacturing date of the machine;
receive a fault code from the machine,
receive a fluid test result for the machine;
receive inspection data determined based on an inspection of the machine; and
generate, based on the aftermarket servicing lead, the fault code, the fluid test result, and the inspection data, a service report associated with the machine;
generate, based on the service report, the servicing schedule for the machine;
receive fault diagnosis data, associated with the aftermarket servicing lead, indicating faults of at least one of the one or more components;
determine a correlation between the fault diagnosis data and at least one of the fault code, the fluid test result, or the inspection data; and
assign a priority for the servicing schedule based on the correlation; and
present data associated with at least one of the service report or the servicing schedule,
receive, via at least one element of the user interface, a user selection of at least one of selected machine identifiers, selected machine locations, selected machine component categories, selected severity levels, selected aftermarket servicing leads, or selected dates; and
filter the data presented in the user interface based on the user selection
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic controller comprising a processor programmed to execute computer-executable instructions, wherein execution of the computer-executable instructions by the processor and generic display device. That is, other than reciting a generic controller nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic controller and generic display device in the context of this claim encompasses a user can collect and analyze information about the performance of a generic machine, manage its maintenance, and write a report regarding its maintenance, as well as human activities, in this case, assigning a priority based on the correlation, which also encompasses collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule(s), identify options and descriptive subject matter, in this case, describing the information that the aftermarket servicing lead is based on. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic controller and generic display, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a generic controller and generic display to communicate and present (display) information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper, i.e. analyzing the collected information to generate a service schedule and writing up a service report. The generic controller and generic display in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic controller and generic display can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the a generic controller are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper; "[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.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic controller and generic display.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 element of using a generic controller and generic display to perform the steps of:
receive an aftermarket servicing lead, associated with the machine, generated based on at least one of operating hours of the machine, historical data associated with one or more components of the machine, a predicted lifespan of the one or more components of the machine, or a manufacturing date of the machine;
receive a fault code from the machine,
receive a fluid test result for the machine;
receive inspection data determined based on an inspection of the machine; and
generate, based on the aftermarket servicing lead, the fault code, the fluid test result, and the inspection data, a service report associated with the machine;
generate, based on the service report, the servicing schedule for the machine;
receive fault diagnosis data, associated with the aftermarket servicing lead, indicating faults of at least one of the one or more components;
determine a correlation between the fault diagnosis data and at least one of the fault code, the fluid test result, or the inspection data; and
assign a priority for the servicing schedule based on the correlation; and
present data associated with at least one of the service report or the servicing schedule,
receive, via at least one element of the user interface, a user selection of at least one of selected machine identifiers, selected machine locations, selected machine component categories, selected severity levels, selected aftermarket servicing leads, or selected dates; and
filter the data presented in the user interface based on the user selection
amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally:
Claim 4 is directed towards collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, in this case, assigning priority.
Claim 5 is directed towards descriptive subject matter, in this case, describing the information that the service report includes.
Claim 6 is directed towards descriptive subject matter, in this case, describing what the prognosis data includes.
Claim 8 is directed towards extra solution activities, in this case, receiving data and describing what the data represents.
Claim 9 is directed towards collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, in this case, the fluid test result.
Claim 10 is directed towards collecting and comparing information, in this case, the fluid test result and what it is based on.
Claim 11 is directed towards descriptive subject matter describing a faulty operation and reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea.
Claim 12 is directed towards descriptive subject matter.
Claim 13 is directed towards collecting and organizing information, as well as describing information, and, based on a rule, identify options.
Claim 14 is directed towards collecting and comparing information and describing the information.
Claim 16 is directed towards collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule, identify options, in this case, prioritization of service scheduling.
The remaining claims recite subject matter that has already been discussed above.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for scheduling maintenance for a machine. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 – 6, 8 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Funk et al. (DE 10393476 T5).
In regards to claims 1, 15, Funk discloses (Claim 1) a system for generating a servicing schedule for a machine, the system comprising; (Claim 15) a computer-implemented method comprising:
a controller comprising a processor programmed to execute computer-executable instructions, wherein execution of the computer-executable instructions by the processor causes the controller to (Pages 5 – 6, last paragraph; Page 6, 2nd, 3rd full paragraph; Page 19, 4th full paragraph; Page 15 4th full paragraph; Fig. 18, 33 wherein the machines have sensors and ECM that collect and transmit information to the central system and the central system accesses historical servicing, operation/performance, feedback, and machinery specific information to inspect/analyze the information and determine the state of the machine and assist with determining whether the machine requires servicing or predicts whether it will require servicing (preventative servicing), as well as collecting information of fluid samples (fluid test result), operating hours, and etc.):
receive an aftermarket servicing lead, associated with the machine, generated based on at least one of operating hours of the machine, historical data associated with one or more components of the machine, a predicted lifespan of the one or more components of the machine, or a manufacturing date of the machine (Page 6, 3rd, 5th full paragraph; Page 10, last paragraph; Page 15, 1st full paragraph, last paragraph wherein the aftermarket service lead is generated based on, at least, component life, operating hours, historical repair information, expected lifespan, and machine model and serial number (which can be used to determine the machine’s manufacturing date), and etc.);
receive a fault code from the machine (Page 6, 5th full paragraph; Page 9, 3rd full paragraph; Page 11, 1st full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th full paragraph – wherein the system utilizes the collected information to receive fault diagnosis associated with the monitored machinery/components, e.g., a fault code is associated with a fault diagnosis, which, in turn, is associated with a corresponding recommendation to resolve the fault),
receive a fluid test result for the machine (Pages 5 – 6, last paragraph; Page 15, 4th full paragraph; Page 19, 4th full paragraph; Fig. 18 wherein the machines have sensors that collect and transmit information to the central system and the central system accesses historical servicing, operation/performance, feedback, and machinery specific information to inspect/analyze the information and determine the state of the machine and assist with determining whether the machine requires servicing or predicts whether it will require servicing (preventative servicing), as well as collecting information of fluid samples (fluid test result), operating hours, and etc.);
receive inspection data determined based on an inspection of the machine (Page 6, 5th full paragraph; Page 9, 3rd full paragraph; Page 11, 1st, 4th full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th full paragraph; Page 15, 1st, 4th full paragraph – wherein the system utilizes the collected information to receive fault diagnosis associated with the monitored machinery/components, e.g., a fault code is associated with a fault diagnosis, which, in turn, is associated with a corresponding recommendation to resolve the fault;
In summary, the system collects and analyzes the information from the machine/sensors to identify a fault code, wherein the fault code correlates with a particular diagnosis. When the diagnosis has been determined, the system determines a prognosis, i.e actions to resolve the identified issue(s). As a non-limiting example, changing the oil and oil filter is determined based on the collected data and the system will proceed with determining a prognosis that addresses this issue, such as, if an oil and oil filter change is due the system will schedule the maintenance operation and check parts inventory levels and, if necessary, order parts to facilitate the oil and oil filter change, wherein changing the oil and oil filter results in a first prognosis of addressing the fault based on the fault diagnosis, i.e. the oil and oil filter requires replacement, and a second prognosis to address the fault based on the fault code, fluid test, and/or inspection data, i.e. the oil and oil filter is replaced, thereby resetting (for example) the record of the machinery to indicate that new oil has been provided, thereby passing the oil condition threshold.); and
generate, based on the aftermarket servicing lead, the fault code, the fluid test result, and the inspection data, a service report associated with the machine (Page 6, 5th full paragraph; Page 9, 3rd full paragraph; Page 11, 1st full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th full paragraph – wherein the system utilizes the collected information to receive fault diagnosis associated with the monitored machinery/components, e.g., a fault code is associated with a fault diagnosis, which, in turn, is associated with a corresponding recommendation to resolve the fault;
Pages 5 – 6, last paragraph; Page 6, 2nd, 3rd full paragraph; Page 19, 4th full paragraph; Page 15 4th full paragraph; Fig. 18, 33 wherein the machines have sensors that collect and transmit information to the central system and the central system accesses historical servicing, operation/performance, feedback, and machinery specific information to inspect/analyze the information and determine the state of the machine and assist with determining whether the machine requires servicing or predicts whether it will require servicing (preventative servicing), as well as collecting information of fluid samples (fluid test result), operating hours, and etc.;
Page 6, 5th full paragraph; Page 9, 3rd full paragraph; Page 11, 1st, 4th full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th full paragraph; Page 15, 1st, 4th full paragraph – wherein the system utilizes the collected information to receive fault diagnosis associated with the monitored machinery/components, e.g., a fault code is associated with a fault diagnosis, which, in turn, is associated with a corresponding recommendation to resolve the fault;
In summary, the system collects and analyzes the information from the machine/sensors to identify a fault code, wherein the fault code correlates with a particular diagnosis. When the diagnosis has been determined, the system determines a prognosis, i.e actions to resolve the identified issue(s). As a non-limiting example, changing the oil and oil filter is determined based on the collected data and the system will proceed with determining a prognosis that addresses this issue, such as, if an oil and oil filter change is due the system will schedule the maintenance operation and check parts inventory levels and, if necessary, order parts to facilitate the oil and oil filter change, wherein changing the oil and oil filter results in a first prognosis of addressing the fault based on the fault diagnosis, i.e. the oil and oil filter requires replacement, and a second prognosis to address the fault based on the fault code, fluid test, and/or inspection data, i.e. the oil and oil filter is replaced, thereby resetting (for example) the record of the machinery to indicate that new oil has been provided, thereby passing the oil condition threshold);
generate, based on the service report, the servicing schedule for the machine (Page 4, 3rd full paragraph; Page 9, 2nd full paragraph; Page 11, 2nd full paragraph – wherein the system collects and analyzes the aforementioned information to generate a service report to determine the state of the machinery and/or its components and utilizes this report to schedule servicing);
receive fault diagnosis data, associated with the aftermarket servicing lead, indicating faults of at least one of the one or more components (Page 6, 5th full paragraph; Page 9, 3rd full paragraph; Page 11, 1st, 4th full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th full paragraph; Page 15, 1st, 4th full paragraph – wherein the system utilizes the collected information to receive fault diagnosis associated with the monitored machinery/components, e.g., a fault code is associated with a fault diagnosis, which, in turn, is associated with a corresponding recommendation to resolve the fault);
In regards to:
determine a correlation between the fault diagnosis data and at least one of the fault code, the fluid test result, or the inspection data; and
assign a priority for the servicing schedule based on the correlation
(Page 6, 5th full paragraph; Page 9, 3rd full paragraph; Page 11, 1st, 4th full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th full paragraph; Page 15, 1st, 4th full paragraph – wherein the system utilizes the collected information to receive fault diagnosis associated with the monitored machinery/components, e.g., a fault code is associated with a fault diagnosis, which, in turn, is associated with a corresponding recommendation to resolve the fault;
Page 9, 2nd full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd full paragraph; Page 15, 1st full paragraph – wherein the system assigns a priority is assigned for the servicing scheduled based on the diagnosis and fault code to determine when servicing should be performed, if preventative maintenance should be performed, whether maintenance is due or overdue, whether no action is needed, and etc.); and
a display device, in data communication with the controller, configured to present data associated with at least one of the service report or the servicing schedule via a user interface (Page 4, 3rd full paragraph; Page 13 1st full paragraph – wherein the central system is utilized by a user to review the assessment of the machinery and assist with managing their maintenance (see also Fig. 10 – 33)),
In regards to:
wherein the computer-executable instructions further case the controller to:
receive, via at least one element of the user interface, a user selection of at least one of selected machine identifiers, selected machine locations, selected machine component categories, selected severity levels, selected aftermarket servicing leads, or selected dates; and
filter the data presented in the user interface based on the user selection
(Page 14, Fig. 10 – 15, 18, 20, 21, 30, 32 wherein a user interacts with the system’s interface to select, as a non-limiting example, a machine identifier, which, in response to the selection, the system filters out all other machines so that the user is presented information for the selected machine identifier).
In regards to claim 4, Funk discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the controller is further configured to assign a high priority for the servicing schedule if the fault diagnosis data matches with at least one of the fault code, the fluid test result, and the inspection data (Page 9, 2nd full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd full paragraph; Page 15, 1st full paragraph – wherein the system assigns a priority is assigned for the servicing scheduled based on the diagnosis and fault code to determine when servicing should be performed, if preventative maintenance should be performed, whether maintenance is due or overdue, whether no action is needed, and etc.).
In regards to claim 5, Funk discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the service report includes prognosis data based on the analysis of the input signal (Page 6, 5th full paragraph; Page 9, 3rd full paragraph; Page 11, 1st, 4th full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th full paragraph; Page 15, 1st, 4th full paragraph – wherein the system utilizes the collected information to receive fault diagnosis associated with the monitored machinery/components, e.g., a fault code is associated with a fault diagnosis, which, in turn, is associated with a corresponding recommendation to resolve the fault;
Page 9, 2nd full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd full paragraph; Page 15, 1st full paragraph – wherein the system assigns a priority is assigned for the servicing scheduled based on the diagnosis and fault code to determine when servicing should be performed, if preventative maintenance should be performed, whether maintenance is due or overdue, whether no action is needed, and etc.
In summary, the system collects and analyzes the information from the machine/sensors to identify a fault code, wherein the fault code correlates with a particular diagnosis. When the diagnosis has been determined, the system determines a prognosis, i.e actions to resolve the identified issue(s). As a non-limiting example, changing the oil and oil filter is determined based on the collected data and the system will proceed with determining a prognosis that addresses this issue, such as, if an oil and oil filter change is due the system will schedule the maintenance operation and check parts inventory levels and, if necessary, order parts to facilitate the oil and oil filter change, wherein changing the oil and oil filter results in a first prognosis of addressing the fault based on the fault diagnosis, i.e. the oil and oil filter requires replacement, and a second prognosis to address the fault based on the fault code, fluid test, and/or inspection data, i.e. the oil and oil filter is replaced, thereby resetting (for example) the record of the machinery to indicate that new oil has been provided, thereby passing the oil condition threshold.).
In regards to claim 6, Funk discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the prognosis data includes a first prognosis data for the aftermarket servicing lead and a second prognosis data for at least one of the fault code, the fluid test result, and the inspection data (Page 6, 5th full paragraph; Page 9, 3rd full paragraph; Page 11, 1st, 4th full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th full paragraph; Page 15, 1st, 4th full paragraph – wherein the system utilizes the collected information to receive fault diagnosis associated with the monitored machinery/components, e.g., a fault code is associated with a fault diagnosis, which, in turn, is associated with a corresponding recommendation to resolve the fault;
Page 9, 2nd full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd full paragraph; Page 15, 1st full paragraph – wherein the system assigns a priority is assigned for the servicing scheduled based on the diagnosis and fault code to determine when servicing should be performed, if preventative maintenance should be performed, whether maintenance is due or overdue, whether no action is needed, and etc.
In summary, the system collects and analyzes the information from the machine/sensors to identify a fault code, wherein the fault code correlates with a particular diagnosis. When the diagnosis has been determined, the system determines a prognosis, i.e actions to resolve the identified issue(s). As a non-limiting example, changing the oil and oil filter is determined based on the collected data and the system will proceed with determining a prognosis that addresses this issue, such as, if an oil and oil filter change is due the system will schedule the maintenance operation and check parts inventory levels and, if necessary, order parts to facilitate the oil and oil filter change, wherein changing the oil and oil filter results in a first prognosis of addressing the fault based on the fault diagnosis, i.e. the oil and oil filter requires replacement, and a second prognosis to address the fault based on the fault code, fluid test, and/or inspection data, i.e. the oil and oil filter is replaced, thereby resetting (for example) the record of the machinery to indicate that new oil has been provided, thereby passing the oil condition threshold.).
In regards to claim 8, Funk discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the fault code is received from the machine and is representative of a faulty operation of one or more components of the machine (Page 6, 5th full paragraph; Page 9, 3rd full paragraph; Page 11, 1st, 4th full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th full paragraph; Page 15, 1st, 4th full paragraph – wherein the system utilizes the collected information to receive fault diagnosis associated with the monitored machinery/components, e.g., a fault code is associated with a fault diagnosis, which, in turn, is associated with a corresponding recommendation to resolve the fault).
In regards to claim 9, Funk discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the fluid test result is generated based on analysis of at least one fluid sample associated with one or more components of the machine (Pages 5 – 6, last paragraph; Page 6, 2nd, 3rd full paragraph; Page 19, 4th full paragraph; Page 15 4th full paragraph; Fig. 18, 33 wherein the machines have sensors that collect and transmit information to the central system and the central system accesses historical servicing, operation/performance, feedback, and machinery specific information to inspect/analyze the information and determine the state of the machine and assist with determining whether the machine requires servicing or predicts whether it will require servicing (preventative servicing), as well as collecting information of fluid samples (fluid test result), operating hours, and etc.).
In regards to claim 10, Funk discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the controller is further configured to compare the fluid test result and a predetermined threshold associated with the at least one fluid sample for generation of the service report (Pages 5 – 6, last paragraph; Page 6, 2nd, 3rd full paragraph; Page 19, 4th full paragraph; Page 15 4th full paragraph; Fig. 18, 33 wherein the machines have sensors that collect and transmit information to the central system and the central system accesses historical servicing, operation/performance, feedback, and machinery specific information to inspect/analyze the information and determine the state of the machine and assist with determining whether the machine requires servicing or predicts whether it will require servicing (preventative servicing), as well as collecting information of fluid samples (fluid test result), operating hours, and etc.;
Page 6, 3rd, 5th full paragraph; Page 10, last paragraph; Page 15, 1st full paragraph wherein the aftermarket service lead is generated based on, at least, component life, operating hours, historical repair information, expected lifespan, and machine model and serial number (which can be used to determine the machine’s manufacturing date), and etc.).
In regards to claim 11, Funk discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the fault code:
indicates a faulty operation of at least one of the one or more components of the machine (Page 6, 5th full paragraph; Page 9, 3rd full paragraph; Page 11, 1st full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th full paragraph – wherein the system utilizes the collected information to receive fault diagnosis associated with the monitored machinery/components, e.g., a fault code is associated with a fault diagnosis, which, in turn, is associated with a corresponding recommendation to resolve the fault), and
is determined by an electronic control module (ECM) of the machine based on one or more sensors of the machine
(Pages 5 – 6, last paragraph; Page 6, 2nd, 3rd full paragraph; Page 19, 4th full paragraph; Page 15 4th full paragraph; Fig. 18, 33 wherein the machines have sensors and ECM that collect and transmit information to the central system and the central system accesses historical servicing, operation/performance, feedback, and machinery specific information to inspect/analyze the information and determine the state of the machine and assist with determining whether the machine requires servicing or predicts whether it will require servicing (preventative servicing), as well as collecting information of fluid samples (fluid test result), operating hours, and etc.).
In regards to claim 12, Funk discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the fault diagnosis data is generated based on at least one of a sales date of the machine, an application of the one or more components, the operating hours of the one or more components, historical failure data associated with the one or more components, the historical repair data associated with the one or more components, historical inspection data associated with the one or more components, or historical fluid test results associated with the one or more components (Pages 5 – 6, last paragraph; (Page 6, 3rd, 5th full paragraph; Page 10, last paragraph; Page 15, 1st, 4th full paragraph wherein the fault diagnosis is generated based on, at least, component life, operating hours, historical repair information, historical fluid test results, expected lifespan, and machine model and serial number, and etc.).
In regards to claim 13, Funk discloses the system of claim 12, wherein:
the computer-executable instructions cause the controller to generate, based on a mapping between the historical failure data and the historical repair data in the fault diagnosis data, an association model, wherein:
the association model identifies at least one of the one or more components that are likely to impacted by real-time machine events associated with the machine, and
the computer-executable instructions cause the controller to assign the priority, for the servicing schedule, at least in part by invoking the association model
(Page 6, 5th full paragraph; Page 9, 3rd full paragraph; Page 11, 1st, 4th full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th full paragraph; Page 15, 1st, 4th full paragraph – wherein the system utilizes the collected information to receive fault diagnosis associated with the monitored machinery/components, e.g., a fault code is associated with a fault diagnosis, which, in turn, is associated with a corresponding recommendation to resolve the fault;
Page 9, 2nd full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd full paragraph; Page 15, 1st full paragraph – wherein the system assigns a priority is assigned for the servicing scheduled based on the diagnosis and fault code to determine when servicing should be performed, if preventative maintenance should be performed, whether maintenance is due or overdue, whether no action is needed, and etc.
Page 9, last paragraph; Page 10, 2nd, 4th full paragraph wherein data is collected and processed in real-time
Page 10, 4th, 5th full paragraph; Page 19, 1st, 4th full paragraphs; Page 20, 4th full paragraph wherein the system collects and analyzes information to identify failure trends/recurring failures between repairs, i.e. mapping between historical failure data and historical repair data).
In regards to claim 14, Funk discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to provide, via the user interface, a notification associated with the servicing schedule if the fault diagnosis data matches with each of the fault code, the fluid test result, and the inspection data (Page 4, 3rd full paragraph; Page 6, 3rd full paragraph; Page 13 1st full paragraph – wherein the central system notifies the user regarding the assessment of the machinery and assist with managing their maintenance (see also Fig. 10 – 33)).
In regards to claim 16, Funk discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the processor is configured to assign:
higher priorities for the servicing schedule based on the correlation indicating fewer conflicts between the fault diagnosis data and at least one of the fault code, the fluid test result, or the inspection data, and
lower priorities for the servicing schedule based on the correlation indicating more conflicts between the fault diagnosis data and the at least one of the fault code, the fluid test result, or the inspection data
(In light of Page 11, Lines 6 – 20 of the applicant’s specification, the Examiner interprets “conflicts” to mean that if there are no matching issues (i.e. fewer conflicts) with the fault diagnosis and the at least one of the fault code, the fluid test result, or the inspection data, i.e. the fault diagnosis matches the at least one of the fault code, the fluid test result, or the inspection data, thereby indicating that there is a problem with the machine and, consequently, it will be assigned a high priority; while if there are matching issues (i.e. more conflicts) with the fault diagnosis and the at least one of the fault code, the fluid test result, or the inspection data, i.e. the fault diagnosis does not match the at least one of the fault code, the fluid test result, or the inspection data, thereby indicating that there is no problem with the machine and, consequently, it will be assigned a low priority.
With that said, Page 9, 2nd full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd full paragraph; Page 15, 1st full paragraph – wherein the system assigns a priority is assigned for the servicing scheduled based on the diagnosis and fault code to determine when servicing should be performed, if preventative maintenance should be performed, whether maintenance is due or overdue, whether no action is needed, and etc.
In other words, if a problem with the machine has been identified, i.e. fault diagnosis matches, at least, a fault code, then the problem will be assigned a high priority and maintenance will be scheduled; whereas if a problem has not been identified, i.e. not fault code, then maintenance will not be scheduled.).
In regards to claim 17, Funk discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, further comprising providing, by the processor, a notification associated with the servicing schedule based on the correlation indicating that the fault diagnosis data matches with each of the fault code, the fluid test result, and the inspection data (Page 4, 3rd full paragraph; Page 6, 3rd full paragraph; Page 13 1st full paragraph – wherein the central system notifies the user regarding the assessment of the machinery and assist with managing their maintenance (see also Fig. 10 – 33)).
In regards to claim 18, Funk discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein:
the service report includes prognosis data associated with one or more of the aftermarket servicing lead and one or more of the fault code, the fluid test result, or the inspection data, and
the prognosis data identifies actionable events or remedies for at least one of the one or more components
(Page 6, 5th full paragraph; Page 9, 3rd full paragraph; Page 11, 1st, 4th full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th full paragraph; Page 15, 1st, 4th full paragraph – wherein the system utilizes the collected information to receive fault diagnosis associated with the monitored machinery/components, e.g., a fault code is associated with a fault diagnosis, which, in turn, is associated with a corresponding recommendation to resolve the fault;
Page 9, 2nd full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd full paragraph; Page 15, 1st full paragraph – wherein the system assigns a priority is assigned for the servicing scheduled based on the diagnosis and fault code to determine when servicing should be performed, if preventative maintenance should be performed, whether maintenance is due or overdue, whether no action is needed, and etc.
In summary, the system collects and analyzes the information from the machine/sensors to identify a fault code, wherein the fault code correlates with a particular diagnosis. When the diagnosis has been determined, the system determines a prognosis, i.e actions to resolve the identified issue(s). As a non-limiting example, changing the oil and oil filter is determined based on the collected data and the system will proceed with determining a prognosis that addresses this issue, such as, if an oil and oil filter change is due the system will schedule the maintenance operation and check parts inventory levels and, if necessary, order parts to facilitate the oil and oil filter change, wherein changing the oil and oil filter results in a first prognosis of addressing the fault based on the fault diagnosis, i.e. the oil and oil filter requires replacement, and a second prognosis to address the fault based on the fault code, fluid test, and/or inspection data, i.e. the oil and oil filter is replaced, thereby resetting (for example) the record of the machinery to indicate that new oil has been provided, thereby passing the oil condition threshold.).
In regards to claim 19, Funk discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the fault code is received from the machine and is representative of a faulty operation of at least one of the one or more components of the machine (Page 6, 5th full paragraph; Page 9, 3rd full paragraph; Page 11, 1st, 4th full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th full paragraph; Page 15, 1st, 4th full paragraph – wherein the system utilizes the collected information to receive fault diagnosis associated with the monitored machinery/components, e.g., a fault code is associated with a fault diagnosis, which, in turn, is associated with a corresponding recommendation to resolve the fault).
In regards to claim 20, Funk discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the fluid test result is generated based on analysis of at least one fluid sample associated with at least one of the one or more components of the machine (Pages 5 – 6, last paragraph; Page 6, 2nd, 3rd full paragraph; Page 19, 4th full paragraph; Page 15 4th full paragraph; Fig. 18, 33 wherein the machines have sensors that collect and transmit information to the central system and the central system accesses historical servicing, operation/performance, feedback, and machinery specific information to inspect/analyze the information and determine the state of the machine and assist with determining whether the machine requires servicing or predicts whether it will require servicing (preventative servicing), as well as collecting information of fluid samples (fluid test result), operating hours, and etc.).
In regards to claim 21, Funk discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the fault code:
indicates a faulty operation of at least one of the one or more components of the machine (Page 6, 5th full paragraph; Page 9, 3rd full paragraph; Page 11, 1st full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th full paragraph – wherein the system utilizes the collected information to receive fault diagnosis associated with the monitored machinery/components, e.g., a fault code is associated with a fault diagnosis, which, in turn, is associated with a corresponding recommendation to resolve the fault), and
is determined by an electronic control module (ECM) of the machine based on one or more sensors of the machine (Pages 5 – 6, last paragraph; Page 6, 2nd, 3rd full paragraph; Page 19, 4th full paragraph; Page 15 4th full paragraph; Fig. 18, 33 wherein the machines have sensors and ECM that collect and transmit information to the central system and the central system accesses historical servicing, operation/performance, feedback, and machinery specific information to inspect/analyze the information and determine the state of the machine and assist with determining whether the machine requires servicing or predicts whether it will require servicing (preventative servicing), as well as collecting information of fluid samples (fluid test result), operating hours, and etc.).
In regards to claim 22, Funk discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the fault diagnosis data is generated based on at least one of a sales date of the machine, an application of the one or more components, the operating hours of the one or more components, historical failure data associated with the one or more components, the historical repair data associated with the one or more components, historical inspection data associated with the one or more components, or historical fluid test results associated with the one or more components (Pages 5 – 6, last paragraph; (Page 6, 3rd, 5th full paragraph; Page 10, last paragraph; Page 15, 1st, 4th full paragraph wherein the fault diagnosis is generated based on, at least, component life, operating hours, historical repair information, historical fluid test results, expected lifespan, and machine model and serial number, and etc.).
In regards to claim 23, Funk discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 22, further comprising generating, by the processor based on a mapping between the historical failure data and the historical repair data in the fault diagnosis data, an association model, wherein:
the association model identifies at least one of the one or more components that are likely to impacted by real-time machine events associated with the machine (), and
the processor assigns the priority, for the servicing schedule, based at least in part on the association model
(Page 6, 5th full paragraph; Page 9, 3rd full paragraph; Page 11, 1st, 4th full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th full paragraph; Page 15, 1st, 4th full paragraph – wherein the system utilizes the collected information to receive fault diagnosis associated with the monitored machinery/components, e.g., a fault code is associated with a fault diagnosis, which, in turn, is associated with a corresponding recommendation to resolve the fault;
Page 9, 2nd full paragraph; Page 14, 2nd full paragraph; Page 15, 1st full paragraph – wherein the system assigns a priority is assigned for the servicing scheduled based on the diagnosis and fault code to determine when servicing should be performed, if preventative maintenance should be performed, whether maintenance is due or overdue, whether no action is needed, and etc.
Page 9, last paragraph; Page 10, 2nd, 4th full paragraph wherein data is collected and processed in real-time
Page 10, 4th, 5th full paragraph; Page 19, 1st, 4th full paragraphs; Page 20, 4th full paragraph wherein the system collects and analyzes information to identify failure trends/recurring failures between repairs, i.e. mapping between historical failure data and historical repair data).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretation has been withdrawn due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is directed towards the abstract idea of the collection and comparison of information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, in this case, managing the maintenance of a machine based on collected and analyzed (compared) information associated with the machine and determining (based on a rule(s)) how to manage its maintenance. The claimed invention is not improving any technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, or deeply rooted in technology. The invention is directed towards the abstract idea, as discussed above, to determine whether a machine requires service scheduling.
The Examiner asserts that the user interface and corresponding elements are recited at a high level of generality and applying them to the abstract idea. The claimed invention does not rise to the same level of “filtering” as BASCOM, but directed towards basic filtering of information based on a rule, i.e. collecting and organizing information, and performing the extra-solution activity of displaying information. The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is not deeply rooted in technology and, but for the generic controller in the context of this claim, encompasses a user collecting and analyzing information about the performance of a generic machine, manage its maintenance, and write a report regarding its maintenance. The Examiner asserts that a human can, indeed, write down information and filter information—either by only presenting some previously written down information and/or writing down only selected information. The claimed invention does not rise to the same level of GUI improvement as CoreWireless.
Moreover, the claimed invention is not directed towards improving the machine or resolving an issue that arose in the machine, but directed towards the collection and comparison of information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, in this case, managing the maintenance of a machine based on collected and analyzed (compared) information associated with the machine and determining (based on a rule(s)) how to manage its maintenance, as discussed above. The claimed invention is directed towards the information about the machine to determine if/when the machine requires servicing and simply providing the information over a preferred time-frame, i.e. real-time. The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is not improving upon or resolving an issue that arose in data transmission technology, but reciting generic data collection and transmission at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, as well as describing information. The claimed invention does not recite any technology improvement that is directed towards resolving a technological improvement with regards to data collection, transmission, or processing.
The claimed invention also recited the abstract idea of prioritization based on the collection and comparison (i.e. correlation; see also applicant’s specification at Page 11, Lines 6 – 20) of information to determine if servicing should be performed.
With regards to “well-understood, routine, conventional activity”, the Examiner asserts that no such statement was made in the rejection and, accordingly, Berkheimer does not apply.
Rejection under 35 USC 102
The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are directed towards newly amended limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the newly submitted amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Gregg (GB 2493105); McQuade et al. (US Patent 10,600,096 B2); Murakami et al. (DE 10145571 A1) – which are directed towards the monitoring, diagnosing, and servicing of machinery, e.g., heavy/industrial/construction machinery
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 GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 1/13/2026