DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 6-13, and 17-21 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 09/09/2024 filing with the Office. Claims 1, 6-8, 12, and 17 are amended. Claims 3-5 and 14-16 are canceled. Claims 20-21 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
the additional amended features cannot be performed in the mind. Remarks p. 15.
It is noted that this argument does not apply to the rejection of the previous Office action. The claims were rejected for falling with in the abstract category of certain methods of organizing human activity, See 06/10/2025 OA at 5 on p. 2.
Similar to claim 1 of example 39, the current claim 1 does not recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Remarks p. 16
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. Example 39, claim 1 was found to be patent eligible because, the claim did not recite a judicial exception, See Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas (2019-01-07) at p. 8-9. Unlike claim 1 of Example 39, which did not recited any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people the instant claims are directed to the management of personal behavior within a business environment. Where the claims are directed towards a method for determining and allocating maintenance tasks to maintenance personnel. Where the allocation is based on cost scores, matching score, and location of the task and the personnel.
For all of the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
For the same reason as claim 1 of example 42 is integrated into the practical application, the features “determining a recommended maintenance task of each of the at least one maintenance personnel based on the matching score: and pushing the recommended maintenance task to a user terminal of each of the at least one maintenance personnel” in amended claim 1 are meaningful limitations, thus amended claim 1 is also integrated into the practical application. Remarks p. 20-21.
Respectfully, the instant claims are not analogous to USPTO 01/07/2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Idea 42, Claim 1. In the analysis of claim at step 2A, Prong 2, it states “the additional elements recite a specific over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.” While the analysis point out many additional element – “storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. The patent eligibility hinges on the “standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user”. There is no step analogues to this standardizing information format regardless of the input format.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
The amended limitations only allows remote users within the specified range to share the information of the specified candidate maintenance task to improve pertinence and adaptability of maintenance. This limitation constitutes a limitation on the scope of application of claims, records the additional elements of transforming abstract concepts into practical applications, and reflects a specific improvement of existing technologies. Remarks p. 21.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. MPEP 2106.05(e) provides “claim should add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. The phrase "meaningful limitations" has been used by the courts even before Alice and Mayo in various contexts to describe additional elements that provide an inventive concept to the claim as a whole.” When the claimed invention is viewed as a whole it is found to be a method for determining and allocating maintenance tasks to maintenance personnel. The claims using a distance as one of the considerations for the task assignment to the personnel is simply an input to the algorithm claimed to a high level of generality – thus not a meaningful limitation that would amount to a practical application.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
The claimed invention solves the problem of how to arrange maintenance tasks and schedule personnel in a more targeted manner to improve the quality of maintenance and save the cost of maintenance is a topic worth studying. Thus, the amended claim 1 is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception. Remarks p. 22.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. Scheduling of people and task is a business problem rather than a technical problem. Where the courts have found similar solutions to business problem not patentable under 35 USC 101. MPEP 2106.05(a) provides, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Applicant respectfully submits that even if amended claim 1 was drawn to an abstract idea, which it is not, the rejection is improper because claim 1 recites elements that qualify as “significantly more” under at least these considerations endorsed by M.P.E.P. § 2106.05. Remarks p. 24
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. MPEP 2106.05 provides, “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).”
In support of his argument Applicant mentions that claim quickly and accurately determine maintenance cost. The Office finds that the alleged improvements are due to the capabilities of the computer. Further Applicant provides support in the system determines recommended maintenance task of the maintenance personnel is what was found to be the abstract idea therefore it cannot also be the inventive concept/significantly more.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
The rejection is factually flawed because the Office Action fails to offer a reasoned explanation of provide the necessary facts to show why Applicant’s claims are “well-understood, routine, and conventional” as required by the recent U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Memorandum dated April 19, 2018 discussing Berkheirmer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir., 2018). Remarks p. 27.
Respectfully, Applicant’s specification teaches “the smart gas user platform 110 may be configured as a terminal device. For example, a terminal device may include a mobile device, a tablet computer, etc., or any combination thereof.” (Spec. [25]). The specification also provides “Internet of Things system may further include a non-transitory storage medium storing a set of instructions, and at least one processor in communicate with the non-transitory storage medium”. (Spec. [7]) Applicant’s own specification describes the system as well-understood, routine, and conventional.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 6-13, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1, 2, 6-11, 20 and 21 are to a method (process), claims 12, 13, and 17-18 are to a system (machine), and claims 19 is to a medium (manufacture).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A method for determining and allocating gas maintenance tasks based on smart gas, implemented based on a smart gas safety management platform of an Internet of Things system for determining and allocating gas maintenance tasks based on smart gas, the method comprising:
obtaining maintenance personnel information of at least one maintenance personnel, the maintenance personnel information including first positioning information of each of the at least one maintenance personnel and historical maintenance data of each of the at least one maintenance personnel;
obtaining second positioning information corresponding to at least one maintenance task;
determining at least one candidate maintenance task based on the first positioning information and the second positioning information, including:
determining a circular range based on a preset radius, the preset radius being determined based on concentration or sparsity of the at least one maintenance personnel;
in response to one or more pieces of the first positioning information belong to the circular range, determining that there is at least one maintenance personnel within the circular range;
determining the at least one maintenance task as the at least one candidate maintenance task for the at least one maintenance personnel in the circular range; and
sending the at least one candidate maintenance task to a user terminal of each of the at least one candidate maintenance personnel within the circular range;
determining a maintenance cost score of each of the at least one maintenance personnel through a cost prediction model based on task data of the at least one candidate maintenance task and the historical maintenance data of the maintenance personnel, wherein the cost prediction model is a machine learning model;
wherein the cost prediction model includes an embedded layer and a prediction layer, the embedded layer is configured to process the historical maintenance data of the maintenance personnel to determine a historical maintenance vector of each of the at least one maintenance personnel and the predication layer is configured to process the historical maintenance vector, the task data of the at least one candidate maintenance task, and a distance between each of the at least one maintenance task and each of the at least one maintenance personnel to determine the maintenance cost score of each of the at least one maintenance personnel;
the embedded layer and the prediction layer are obtained through joint training based on a plurality of sets of training samples with cost labels, wherein the training samples include historical maintenance data of a plurality of sample maintenance personnel and task data of a plurality of historical sample candidate maintenance tasks, and the cost labels include actual maintenance cost scores of the plurality of the sample maintenance personnel executing the historical sample candidate maintenance tasks, and the joint training includes:
inputting the historical maintenance data of the plurality of the sample maintenance personnel into an initial embedded layer to obtain historical maintenance vectors of the plurality of the maintenance personnel, and inputting the historical maintenance vectors of the plurality of the maintenance personnel and the task data of the plurality of historical sample candidate maintenance tasks into an initial prediction layer to obtain cost scores of the plurality of the maintenance personnel;
constructing a loss function based on the cost labels corresponding to the training samples and outputs of the initial prediction layer;
iteratively updating parameters of the initial embedded layer and the initial prediction layer based on the loss function until a preset condition is satisfied; and
obtaining the embedded layer and the prediction layer;
determining a candidate maintenance personnel corresponding to the at least one candidate maintenance task based on the maintenance cost score; and
determining a matching score between each of the at least one candidate maintenance task and each of the at least one maintenance personnel through a task matching model based on a distance between each of the at least one maintenance personnel and each of the at least one candidate maintenance task, and task data of each of the at least one candidate maintenance task, wherein the task matching model is a machine learning model;
determining a recommended maintenance task of each of the at least one maintenance personnel based on the matching score; and
pushing the recommended maintenance task to a user terminal of each of the at least one maintenance personnel.
The claims are directed toward the matching of maintenance task to a maintenance personnel, which the Office finds to be the management of human resource and resource assignments using scoring system. The Office finds this to be within the abstract category of certain methods of organizing human activity – more specifically managing personal behavior within a business environment. The fact that Applicant uses various models to make the matching does not remove the claims from the realm of abstraction, see eMPEP 2106.04(a)(2) for examples of claims found ineligible even with algorithms.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The obtaining/inputting/sending elements are determined to be steps of data gather, while sending and outputting step all – insignificant extra-solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. Where the hardware component are found to be general-purpose, generic off the shelf when read in light of the instant specification.
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claim 2 further defines the input data, where as claimed it is “input” or a step of data gathering that does not add significantly more or a practical application to the claim.
Claim 8 adds additional determining steps to the claim which adds to the identified abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as identified above.
Claims 6 and 7 further defines the input data for the matching model, where as claimed it is “input” or a step of data gathering that does not add significantly more or a practical application to the claim.
Claims 9 and 18 further defines the matching model which adds to the identified abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as identified above.
Claims 10, 11, and 13 further defines the software components of the system which adds to the identified abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as identified above.
Claim 20 allows the claimed invention to consider multiple maintenance task and candidate maintenance task when making task assignments to personnel, which adds to the identified abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as identified above.
Claim 21 creates a driving or walking path for to the maintenance task for the maintenance personnel – which found to be instruction for managing personal behavior, which adds to the identified abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as identified above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoffman et al (US 2003/0050807 A1) teaches electronic order form is generated based on the data for ordering gas station goods and services from a gas station distributor of the gas station supply chain. The data is transmitted via the network to the gas station distributor of the gas station supply chain. The data is also transmitted to a gas station supplier of the gas station supply chain utilizing the network. Additionally, activity in the gas station supply chain is forecast utilizing the data.
Agarwal et al (US 2013/0179388 A1) teaches a computer-implemented maintenance/repair workscope development tool uses one or more sources of gas turbine engine/fleet operational condition data, gas turbine engine/fleet historical data and gas turbine engine/fleet specific information, including other historical, statistical and maintenance/engineering records data to develop a recommended maintenance/repair workscope. A method, system and program product are described for producing a recommended maintenance/repair workscope for individual machines and/or machines on a fleet level.
Selvaraj et al (US 2024/0086801 A1) teaches ob at a worksite can be performed by different numbers of machines, and machines can be deployed to perform the job according to different dispatch schemes. A computing system can use job design data and other job parameters associated with the job to determine projected job performance times and costs associated with different combinations of candidate fleet sizes and candidate dispatch schemes.
Black et al (US 8,340,996 B2) teaches automated method for assessing the readiness of a plurality of repairable systems, such as a fleet of aircraft, is provided. In addition to identifying the repairable systems that will be operational, the relative state of readiness of the repairable systems is determined such that the repairable systems that are most likely to successfully complete the designated task can be selected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights