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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 and 11-17 are pending, but Claims 14 and 16-17 are withdrawn. Claim 10 is cancelled. Claims, 1 and 14-17 are amended. Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 15 were elected without traverse in the election response filed on 11/04/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments, filed 05/22/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 1-2, that no economic practice, business relationship or humane interaction is recited. Applicant argues that the amended claims as a whole are directed to a technical process executed by a computer system using the AI technology to achieve a specific technical result. Applicant argues that the machine learning is performed by the computer and cannot be performed in the human mind.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as displaying information regarding maintenance schedules and updating schedules based on failure detection (see specification, Page 1: efficiently executing maintenance work). The additional elements (computer elements, machine learning, failure prediction model) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Examiner notes that the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. (See MPEP, 2106.04(a)(2)). Here, the computer elements, as mentioned above, are recited at a high level of generality and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims still fall within certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/22/2026, with respect to the art rejection has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 4, that in Johnson the system 100 does not indicate any relationship between two maintenance processes, e.g., a first maintenance and a second maintenance, and fails to teach providing a recommendation of accelerated execution of the first maintenance including an activity that is the same as or similar to an activity of additional maintenance.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Johnson teaches the amended limitations as cited and in the updated rejection below. With respect to arguments, Johnson, in Fig. 3 and Par. 0051, discloses a display for the maintenance schedule with multiple scheduled maintenances. Additionally, Johnson, in Fig. 13 and Par. 0104-1016, discloses that the maintenance cycle is escalated to prioritize the urgency of a failure warning. This is further demonstrated in Par. 0112 and Fig. 16A which discloses the maintenance is advanced. Lastly, Johnson in Par. 0068-0070, discloses the machine learning for performance and failure predictions. Therefore, Johnson still discloses the claim limitations.
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 1-9, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 15 are directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore are a machine.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
… display information related to accelerated execution of a maintenance schedule for a first maintenance in response to determination of a maintenance schedule for a second maintenance, based on the maintenance schedule for the second maintenance, the second maintenance being different from the first maintenance and being to be executed additionally, wherein
… to identify the first maintenance as an activity that is the same as or similar to an activity of the second maintenance for a target module associated with the second maintenance, and to display the information as a proposal recommending accelerated execution of the identified first maintenance such that the second maintenance is not additionally executed and the accelerated execution is performed to execute a process for automatically rescheduling planned regular maintenance,
the second maintenance includes additional maintenance for handling a failure in a device in response to detection of a sign of the failure, the detection of the sign being performed using … in response to device status information of the device being input to the …, and
… to estimate the target module for which an occurrence of the failure is predicted using the device status information as an input … such that the maintenance schedule is automatically generated as an output … .
The limitations of Claim 15 recites:
… display information related to accelerated execution of a maintenance schedule for a first maintenance, in response to determination of a maintenance schedule for a second maintenance, based on the maintenance schedule for the second maintenance, the second maintenance being different from the first maintenance and being to be executed additionally, wherein
… to identify the first maintenance as an activity that is the same as or similar to an activity of the second maintenance for a target module associated with the second maintenance, and to display the information as a proposal recommending accelerated execution of the identified first maintenance such that the second maintenance is not additionally executed and the accelerated execution is performed to execute a process for automatically rescheduling planned regular maintenance,
the second maintenance includes additional maintenance for handling a failure in a device in response to detection of a sign of the failure, the detection of the sign being performed …in response to device status information of the device being input …, and
… estimate the target module for which an occurrence of the failure is predicted using the device status information as an input … for the failure prediction model such that the maintenance schedule is automatically generated as an output ….
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as displaying information regarding maintenance schedules and updating schedules based on failure detection. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
An information processing system, comprising:
circuitry configured to control a display
failure prediction model created by machine learning
Claim 15:
A maintenance management system, comprising:
circuitry configured to control display
failure prediction model created by machine learning
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-13 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claims 1. Therefore, claims 2-9 and 11-13 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 6:
Memory that stores execution or non-execution
Claim 9
device
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable by Johnson (US20190147413A1).
Claim 1: Johnson teaches An information processing system, comprising:
circuitry configured to control a display to display information related to accelerated execution of a maintenance schedule for a first maintenance in response to determination of a maintenance schedule for a second maintenance, based on the maintenance schedule for the second maintenance, the second maintenance being different from the first maintenance and being to be executed additionally. (Johnson, Par. 0051 and Fig. 3; Par. 0104 and Fig. 13)
Johnson, in Par. 0051 teaches FIG. 3 is a chart illustrating an example of a modified maintenance schedule generated within the system of FIG. 1B that can be implemented within one or more embodiments. As shown in chart 300, the modified maintenance schedule 310 includes a maintenance task timeline 312 and a selected item task detail 314. As shown in the maintenance task timeline 312 including finished-base tasks, calendar-based tasks, UI extended tasks and predictive alerts, and tasks scheduled alerts, for example. The maintenance task timeline 312 illustrates the overall maintenance tasks necessary for a network including a plurality of equipment. The selected item task detail 314 illustrates maintenance for a specific piece of equipment of the plurality of equipment.
Johnson, in Par. 0104 and Fig. 13, teaches On the FIG. 13 flowchart at step 1310, VM3 receives SSPA signals (from VM1) and UIFA signals (from VM2). VM3 then determines if SSPA detected TA operational degradation 1320. If an alert flag has been received from SSPA 1322, then VM3 calls for escalating the TA's maintenance cycle 1324 and performing the necessary maintenance event at an earlier time than previously scheduled.
wherein the circuitry is configured to identify the first maintenance as an activity that is the same as or similar to an activity of the second maintenance for a target module associated with the second maintenance, and to display the information as a proposal recommending accelerated execution of the identified first maintenance such that the second maintenance is not additionally executed and the accelerated execution is performed to execute a process for automatically rescheduling planned regular maintenance, (Johnson, Par. 0112 and Fig. 16A; See also Par. 0104-0106: schedule adjusted accordingly)
Johnson, Par. 0112 and Fig. 16A, teaches an exemplary timeline diagram comparing Calendar scheduled maintenance vs Extended maintenance vs Advanced maintenance. The upper timeline 1650 illustrates calendar scheduled maintenance. … The lower timeline 1670 illustrates advanced maintenance, whereby one of more events are performed at an earlier time than previously scheduled.
the second maintenance includes additional maintenance for handling a failure in a device in response to detection of a sign of the failure, the detection of the sign being performed using a failure prediction model in response to device status information of the device being input to the failure prediction model, and (Johnson, Par. 0105; 0068-0070)
Johnson, Par. 0105, teaches VM3 also dynamically prioritizes the urgency of the received failure warning 1326. If a more urgent problem is identified after review by subject matter experts, an automatic maintenance request would be submitted to the maintenance system controller, thereby triggering appropriate corrective responses.
Johnson, Par. 0068, teaches VM1 is an historian processor 840. It includes a smart signal predictive analytics (SSPA) module 844. VM1 performs SSPA maintenance computations, using both incoming and stored 842 history data, in conjunction with analytics from its machine learning modules 846. VM1 combines this information to make TA performance/failure predictions, for maintaining a selected TA. For example, VM1 may compare current behavior with predicted values developed from similarity based modelling for various operating modes.
Johnson, Par. 0069, teaches VM2 is a UI analytics engine 850. VM2 850 includes a UI factor analytics (UIFA) module 852. VM2 performs UIFA computations using model behavior data (for equipment in the same class as the TA of interest), incoming sensory and stored usage data, and analytics from its own machine learning modules 854. For example, VM2 may compare (e.g., FIG. 10) sensed usage data, which indicates the actual amount of wear or work performed, with model baseline data developed for the specific type of TA apparatus (e.g., FIGS. 10 and 11-12).
Johnson, Par. 0070, teaches VM3 is a control processor 860. VM3 combines information from VM1 and VM2 and manages maintenance tracking and scheduling 870. VM3 also uses the historical and calculated data to drive dashboards providing meaningful information on maintenance status of covered equipment, and VM3 860 controls displays 880 and interactions with operators.
the failure prediction model is created by machine learning to estimate the target module for which an occurrence of the failure is predicted using the device status information as an input of the machine learning for the failure prediction model such that the maintenance schedule is automatically generated as an output of the machine learning. (Johnson, Par. 0068-0070)
Johnson, Par. 0068, teaches VM1 is an historian processor 840. It includes a smart signal predictive analytics (SSPA) module 844. VM1 performs SSPA maintenance computations, using both incoming and stored 842 history data, in conjunction with analytics from its machine learning modules 846. VM1 combines this information to make TA performance/failure predictions, for maintaining a selected TA. For example, VM1 may compare current behavior with predicted values developed from similarity based modelling for various operating modes.
Johnson, Par. 0069, teaches VM2 is a UI analytics engine 850. VM2 850 includes a UI factor analytics (UIFA) module 852. VM2 performs UIFA computations using model behavior data (for equipment in the same class as the TA of interest), incoming sensory and stored usage data, and analytics from its own machine learning modules 854. For example, VM2 may compare (e.g., FIG. 10) sensed usage data, which indicates the actual amount of wear or work performed, with model baseline data developed for the specific type of TA apparatus (e.g., FIGS. 10 and 11-12).
Johnson, Par. 0070, teaches VM3 is a control processor 860. VM3 combines information from VM1 and VM2 and manages maintenance tracking and scheduling 870. VM3 also uses the historical and calculated data to drive dashboards providing meaningful information on maintenance status of covered equipment, and VM3 860 controls displays 880 and interactions with operators.
Claim 2: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance specifies a target module to be subjected to the first maintenance, and (Johnson, Par. 0104: TA (Target apparatus))
the circuitry is configured to control the display to display the information related to accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance in a case where the target module to be subjected to the first maintenance is identical to a target module to be subjected to the second maintenance. (Johnson, Par. 0104: TA (Target apparatus) i.e. identical)
Claim 3: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the circuitry is configured to control the display not to display the information related to accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance in a case where a period of time until a scheduled date of execution of the first maintenance is less than or equal to a predetermined number of days, the scheduled date of execution of the first maintenance being specified based on the second maintenance. (Johnson, Fig. 5: Blocks 512 and 514: maintenance schedule)
Claim 4: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the circuitry is configured to:
in response to hiding of the information related to accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance without execution of the first maintenance, control the display to display a notification on a screen, the notification indicating that the information related to accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance remains undeleted; and (Johnson, Fig. 5: Blocks 512 and 514; par. 0104: flag)
cancel display of the notification on the screen in response to a period of time from a current time until a scheduled date of execution of the first maintenance being less than or equal to a predetermined number of days, the scheduled date of execution of the first maintenance being specified based on the second maintenance. (Johnson, Fig. 5: Blocks 512 and 514)
Claim 5: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the circuitry is configured to:
control the display to repeatedly, at a predetermined time, display information related to accelerated execution of the first maintenance and specified based on the second maintenance; and (Johnson, Par. 0104: accelerated execution)
stop display of the information related to accelerated execution of the first maintenance and specified based on the second maintenance, in response to a period of time until a scheduled date of execution of the first maintenance being less than or equal to a predetermined number of days, the scheduled date of execution of the first maintenance being specified based on the second maintenance. (Johnson, Par. 0107)
Claim 6: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising a memory that stores execution or non-execution for the accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance in association with the second maintenance that is determined to be executed additionally, the execution or non-execution being specified based on the second maintenance, (Johnson, Par. 0051 and Fig. 3) wherein
the circuitry is configured to change whether to display information related to accelerated execution of the first maintenance and specified based on the second maintenance, based on the execution or non-execution stored in the memory for the accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance for which information related to accelerated execution has been previously displayed. (Johnson, Par. 0051 and Fig. 3)
Claim 7: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 6, wherein
the circuitry is configured to control the display to display information related to accelerated execution of the first maintenance and specified based on the second maintenance, in a case where the execution or non-execution stored in the memory indicates that accelerated execution of the second maintenance to be performed on a target module identical to a target module to be subjected to the second maintenance that is determined to be executed additionally has been performed. (Johnson, Par. 0051 and Fig. 3)
Claim 8: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 6, wherein
the circuitry is configured to change whether to display information related to accelerated execution of the first maintenance and specified based on the second maintenance, based on a percentage of executions of the first maintenance for which information related to accelerated execution has been previously displayed, the percentage being stored in the memory. (Johnson, Par. 0092)
Claim 9: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the first maintenance includes regular maintenance that is set based on a counter value of a device. (Johnson, Par. 0085: number of revolutions)
Claim 11: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the information related to accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance includes information for recommending the accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance. (Johnson, Par. 0051 and Fig. 3)
Claim 12: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the information related to accelerated execution of the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance includes information indicating that the maintenance schedule for the first maintenance is executable in an accelerated way. (Johnson, Par. 0051 and Fig. 3)
Claim 13: Johnson teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the first maintenance includes maintenance to be executed periodically. (Johnson, Par. 0051 and Fig. 3)
Claims 15: Claim 15 is directed to a system. Claim 15 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a system. Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
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 ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights