Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
3. This office action is in response to the claims filed 03/27/2024.
4. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
5. The office action is made Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 03/27/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 5, 12 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Honey teaches limitations as per claims 1, 8 and 15 but fails to teach claims 5, 12 and 18 limitations. There is no prior art, whether singly or in combination, teach or suggest the limitations of claims 5, 12 and 18.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
9. 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
10. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
11. Claims 15-20 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to a facility comprising: a plurality of functional locations, wherein each of the plurality of functional locations comprises a plurality of pieces of equipment; an Asset Management Solution (AMS)… a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS)… and a Process Equipment Criticality Assessment (PECA) engine comprising functionality.
Paragraph [0013] of this instant published specification (“The AMS includes hardware/software that enables business entity to manage its equipment effectively and efficiently by harnessing the power of data and analytics, with the aim of maximizing asset performance, minimizing risks, and improving operational efficiency.”, [0018], “the AMS (150) includes software, hardware, or a combination of software and hardware with the functionality to facilitate, or otherwise manage, the following maintenance tasks”), has provided evidence that the claimed system could be a software per se only, wherein a series of modules are to be executed. The claims do not define structural and functional descriptive material used in interrelationship between the computer software and the hardware like a memory or processor. Software per se does not fit within recognized categories of statutory subject matter therefore it is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Interpretation- 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
13. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
With respect to claim 15, claim elements “an Asset Management Solution (AMS), a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) and a Process Equipment Criticality Assessment (PECA)” configured to perform operations” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a non-structural term coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 15 is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification ([0003], “The PECA engine includes a computer processor, and memory storing instructions, when executed by the computer processor comprising functionality for obtaining, from an Asset Management Solution (AMS) or a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS)”, [0069]) does not clearly reveal any corresponding structure for the components/modules “an Asset Management Solution (AMS), a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) and a Process Equipment Criticality Assessment (PECA)”, which is described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
To overcome this rejection, Examiner recommends explicitly adding computer hardware like “processor and memory “to claim 15 so that this element will fail prong (A) and not invoke 112(f).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
14. Dependent claims 16-20 are also interpreted under the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as having means plus function type limitations, and therefore, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
15. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
16. 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
17. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
In the instance case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 and 15-20 are directed to a system. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea in the following limitations:
identifying, from the hierarchical equipment list, a plurality of functional locations of the facility, wherein each of the plurality of functional locations comprises a plurality of pieces of equipment, wherein each of the plurality of pieces of equipment is assigned a plurality of equipment attributes in the AMS or CMMS.
analyzing the plurality of equipment attributes of all equipment deployed in the plurality of functional locations to generate a failure consequences score, an importance score, a reliability and maintainability score, and a utilization score of each of the plurality of functional locations; and facilitating, based on the failure consequences score, the importance score, the reliability and maintainability score, and the utilization score of each of the plurality of functional locations, the equipment maintenance operation of the facility.
The step describes a process of collecting data, performing mathematical/logical calculations, and using that data to guide a decision.
"Analyzing" data and "facilitating" a maintenance operation are concepts that can be performed entirely in the human mind or via generic mathematical models. Also, calculating multiple "scores" (failure consequences, importance, reliability, utilization) based on attributes is a mathematical and statistical exercise.
Thus, these limitations as drafted are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the following additional elements, which do not provide integration into a practical application:
The additional elements “Asset Management Solution (AMS) or a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS)” (claim 1), “A Process Equipment Criticality Assessment (PECA) engine”, “an Asset Management Solution (AMS) or a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS)”, “computer processor; and memory” (claim 8) and “Asset Management Solution (AMS) or a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS)” (claim 15).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally "apply" the concept of receiving data, analyzing it, and providing return recommendation. In particular, the claims only recite the additional element - “processor and memory (Claim 1); A non-transitory computer-readable medium (Claim 24)”. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception of using a generic computer component or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements: “obtaining, from an Asset Management Solution (AMS) or a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS), a hierarchical equipment list of the facility; retrieving, from the AMS or CMMS, the plurality of equipment attributes of all equipment deployed in the plurality of functional locations”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes a Generic Data Collection. Federal Circuit precedent (such as Electric Power Group v. Alstom) establishes that collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is an abstract concept. Simply swapping a general database for specific terms like an Asset Management System (AMS) or Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) does not change the fact that the underlying step is data retrieval. Thus, the additional elements are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, The Additional elements were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
However, the conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration considers whether the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The data gathering activities are recited at a high level of generality and have been recognized by the courts as being routine laboratory techniques. See Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or to detect allelic variants is conventional in the art); MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 merely incorporate additional elements that narrow the abstract idea without yielding an improvement to any technical field, the computer itself, or limitations beyond merely linking the idea to a particular technological environment.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14 and 16-20.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims inherit the abstract idea of claims 1, 8 and 15 (Mental process).
The scores (a failure consequences score, an importance score, a reliability and maintainability score, and a utilization score) are generated using a specific formula, mathematical algorithm, or statistical relationship, the law views the formula itself as an unpatentable concept.
Also, The Federal Circuit (in cases like Electric Power Group v. Alstom) has repeatedly ruled that "collecting, analyzing, and displaying information" is a fundamental human mental process. Even if the scoring is too complex to do quickly by hand, if it can theoretically be computed with a pen, paper, and a math equation, it is legally considered a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claims 3 and 10.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claims inherit the abstract idea of claim 1 and 13 (Mental process).
The step of claim 3 and 10 describes taking data (a "criticality index"), running it through a rule-based sorting mechanism ("categorizing... into one of..."), and mapping a corresponding action based on that category.
Also, historically, maintenance managers have always categorized equipment (e.g., "high, medium, low priority") and assigned varying levels of care (e.g., routine checks vs. run-to-failure) using a pen, paper, or mental judgment. Automating a known business or organizational strategy does not make it less abstract.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Examiner Note
18. The Examiner cites columns and line numbers in references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
19. 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.
20. 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)(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.
21. Claims 1-3, 8-10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Honey et al (US 20240378534 A1) hereinafter as Honey.
22. Regarding claim 1, Honey teaches A method to perform an equipment maintenance operation of a facility, comprising:
obtaining, from an Asset Management Solution (AMS) or a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS), a hierarchical equipment list of the facility (Fig 1A-1B, “an asset performance management (APM) system 102”, [0008], Fig 1B, [0034], “a hierarchy of equipment 156”, Fig 4A, [0044], “the power generation environment can be logically organized such that the environment includes one or more regions (e.g., geographic areas), with each region including one or more plants (e.g., power generation facilities), with each plant including one or more units (e.g., power generation equipment, such as generators, wind turbines, solar arrays, etc.), and with each unit including various component parts.”);
identifying, from the hierarchical equipment list, a plurality of functional locations of the facility, wherein each of the plurality of functional locations comprises a plurality of pieces of equipment ([0008], Fig 1B, [0033], “region 152 with multiple facilities and equipment within the facilities 128 for example”, Fig 4A, [0044], “the power generation environment can be logically organized such that the environment includes one or more regions (e.g., geographic areas), with each region including one or more plants (e.g., power generation facilities), with each plant including one or more units (e.g., power generation equipment, such as generators, wind turbines, solar arrays, etc.), and with each unit including various component parts.”), wherein each of the plurality of pieces of equipment is assigned a plurality of equipment attributes in the AMS or CMMS (Fig 1A, [0025], “the APM system 102 can receive operational data 132 (equipment attributes) from the equipment at the facilities 128, which can include information from the equipment itself (e.g., current state of operation and conditions within the equipment), ...”, [0027], “the operational data 132, equipment health information, and/or other equipment and event information”, [0029], Fig 4G, [0053], “Technical Specifications”);
retrieving, from the AMS or CMMS, the plurality of equipment attributes of all equipment deployed in the plurality of functional locations (Fig 1A-1B, [0025], “the APM system 102 can receive operational data 132 (equipment attributes) from the equipment at the facilities 128”);
analyzing the plurality of equipment attributes of all equipment deployed in the plurality of functional locations to generate
a failure consequences score ([0028], “calculate event generation impact related to associated equipment”, [0030-0031], “The operational risk subsystem 106 can determine operational risk scores associated with equipment in the facilities 128—meaning the potential impact on the broader facility, enterprise, and/or systems of a particular piece of equipment failing—and can use the operational risk scores to prioritize, schedule, direct, and track work orders to mitigate those operational risks”),
an importance score (Abstract, “identifying criticality scores (an importance score) that indicate a degree of importance of the assets to facility operations”, [0007-0008], “identifying criticality scores (an importance score) for the plurality of assets in the facility, wherein each of the criticality scores indicate a degree of importance of the corresponding asset to operation of the facility or an enterprise to which the facility belongs; determining, based on the asset health scores and the criticality scores, operational risk scores for the plurality of assets in the facility, wherein each of the operational risk scores indicate a risk posed to the ongoing operation of the facility or to the enterprise by the corresponding asset”),
a reliability and maintainability score (Abstract, “the asset health scores (a reliability and maintainability score)”, [0005-0006], [0029-0031], “the asset health scores”), and
a utilization score of each of the plurality of functional locations ([0008], “The facility can be part of a plurality of facilities that service a common region, and the criticality score can further indicate a degree of importance of the facility to the service provided to the common region.”, [0033-0034]); and
facilitating, based on the failure consequences score, the importance score, the reliability and maintainability score, and the utilization score of each of the plurality of functional locations, the equipment maintenance operation of the facility (Abstract, “determining actions and corresponding action prioritizations to recommend for the assets, ranking the plurality of assets based on the operational risk scores, and outputting, in a user interface, information identifying the assets ranked based on the operational risk scores.”, Fig 2A, [0025], “observations and inspection reports for equipment, confirmation of the performance of various maintenance, repair, and/or replacement orders, and/or other user input that may indicate the health or condition of the equipment, or facility more broadly.”, [0036], “Recommendations can be created manually and/or automatically through machine learning and/or AI techniques.”, Fig 3B, “Site recommendations”, Fig 6, [0051], “maintenance strategy”, Fig 5A-5L, [0059], “The GUIs, for example, can include various dashboards, datasheets, and reports for planning maintenance and project scope based on equipment condition and risk. Data can be provided through the GUIs to inform decisions and enable the right maintenance to be performed on the right equipment at the right time, to ultimately reduce failures and maintenance cost.”).
23. Regarding claim 2, Honey teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches calculating, based on the failure consequences score, the importance score, the reliability and maintainability score, and the utilization score of said each of the plurality of functional locations, a criticality index of said each of the plurality of functional locations ([0030], [0033-0034], Fig 8C-8D, [0066-0067], “heat map or matrix”, [0073], “risk matrix (criticality index)”); and
generating a maintenance priority ranking of the plurality of functional locations based on respective criticality indices, wherein the equipment maintenance operation of the facility is performed according to the maintenance priority ranking (Abstract, [0005], [0007], “determining one or more actions and corresponding action prioritizations to recommend for each of the plurality of assets based, at least in part, on the operational risk scores, ranking the plurality of assets based on the operational risk scores; outputting, in a user interface, information identifying the plurality of assets ranked based on the operational risk scores, wherein the information includes the operational risk scores, the one or more actions for each of the plurality of assets, and the action prioritizations for the one or more actions.”, [0030], “generate and prioritize orders 138 for proactive and/or corrective action 118.”, [0073], “Referring now to FIG. 5E, for example, a GUI can provide a list of assets, ranked according to Asset Health Index (AHI) (a criticality index), with assets having low health index scores (a maintenance priority ranking) being placed at the top of the list.”, [0079]).
24. Regarding claim 3, Honey teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2 above and further teaches categorizing, based on the criticality index, said each of the plurality of functional locations into one of a production critical category, a production important category, and a production ordinary category ([0062-0065]),
wherein the equipment maintenance operation comprises a prescriptive maintenance operation for the production critical category, a preventive maintenance operation for the production important category, and a corrective maintenance operation for the production ordinary category ([0062-0065]).
25. Regarding claims 8-10, 15 and 16, those claims recite a system performing the method of claims 1-3 and they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
26. 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.
27. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the way the invention was made.
28. Claims 4, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Honey et al (US 20240378534 A1) hereinafter as Honey in view of Artemenko (RU 2833832 C1) hereinafter as Artemenko.
29. Regarding claim 4, Honey teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, Honey did not specifically teach claim 4 limitations.
However, Artemenko teaches wherein generating the failure consequences score comprises: determining, based on the plurality of equipment attributes, a measure of human risk, a measure of environmental risk, a measure of economic risk, and a measure of reputation risk that correspond to an equipment failure event at said each of the plurality of functional locations; and aggregating, using a pre-determined algorithm, the measure of human risk, the measure of environmental risk, the measure of economic risk, and the measure of reputation risk to calculate the failure consequences score of said each of the plurality of functional locations (Para [38], “determine the criticality level of a component using a risk matrix, which is a unified risk assessment tool based on the information provided, one of the axes may represent the ITS, and the other may represent an event probability assessment. The risk matrices required to assess the criticality of a component may be presented in several categories, for example, damage to people, environmental impact, impact on reputation, financial damage. The risk may be assessed either based on the maximum risk level value for each of the categories: damage to health, environmental impact, impact on reputation, financial damage, or based on the sum of the maximum values of these consequences.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Artemenko’s system into Honey’s and by incorporating Artemenko into Honey because both systems are related to managing the reliability of a production facility would allow optimizing the costs of maintenance and/or repair (M&R) of a production facility while ensuring production safety (Artemenko).
30. Regarding claims 11 and 17, those claims recite a system performing the method of claim 4 and they are rejected under the same rationale.
31. Claims 6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Honey et al (US 20240378534 A1) hereinafter as Honey in view of Ayachitula et al (US 20240414064 A1) hereinafter as Ayachitula.
32. Regarding claim 6, Honey teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, Honey did not specifically teach claim 6 limitations.
However, Ayachitula teaches wherein generating the reliability and maintainability score comprises: determining, based on the plurality of equipment attributes, a measure of mean-time-before-failure and a measure of mean-time-to-repair that correspond to an equipment failure event at said each of the plurality of functional locations; and aggregating, using a pre-determined algorithm, the measure of mean-time-before-failure and the measure of mean-time-to-repair to calculate the reliability and maintainability score of said each of the plurality of functional locations ([0086-0087], “The device availability score: the device availability score in Equation 5 is determined by the ratio of MTBF to the sum of MTBF and MTTR, representing the reliability and repair efficiency of the device. This device availability score provides a relative measure of how often the device is available for use, considering both the time between failures and the time required to resolve any issues.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Ayachitula’s system into Honey’s and by incorporating Ayachitula into Honey because both systems are related to managing the reliability of a production facility would provide a system that can avoid change induced incidents in the IT environment (Ayachitula).
33. Regarding claims 13 and 19, those claims recite a system performing the method of claim 6 and they are rejected under the same rationale.
34. Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Honey et al (US 20240378534 A1) hereinafter as Honey in view of LEE (WO 2013100334 A1) hereinafter as LEE.
35. Regarding claim 7, Honey teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, Honey did not specifically teach claim 7 limitations.
However, LEE teaches wherein generating the utilization score comprises: determining, based on the plurality of equipment attributes, a measure of equipment capacity and a measure of equipment utilization that correspond to said each of the plurality of functional locations; and aggregating, using a pre-determined algorithm, the measure of equipment capacity and the measure of equipment utilization to calculate the utilization score of said each of the plurality of functional locations (see Tech solution at “a utilization rate calculator configured to calculate actual utilization capacity information and operation reference capacity information of a network asset input through the collection unit and an asset utilization rate using the classification model. The calculation unit of the asset utilization rate may be a base station, a zone, or a node unit.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in LEE’s system into Honey’s and by incorporating LEE into Honey because both systems are related to cost information calculation would provide a communication network cost calculation device (LEE).
36. Regarding claims 14 and 20, those claims recite a system performing the method of claim 7 and they are rejected under the same rationale.
CONCLUSION
37. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
Cella et al (US 20240144141 A1)
King et al (US 8594924 B2)
Tofiq (US 20220166688 A1)
Johnson et al (US 20170323231 A1)
Cheng et al (US 20160092808 A1)
Jones et al (US 20150294048 A1)
Ahuja et al (US 20140173739 A1)
Vetter et al (US 20020049563 A1)
Nachmany et al (US 20260079455 A1)
Li et al (US 20190207388 A1)
Smiley et al (US 20140365264 A1)
Chiaramonte et al (US 20190147412 A1)
KRÖSELBERG (EP 4607385 A1)
JONES (WO 2015157745 A2)
KELLY (WO 2006125274 A1)
AIT (WO 2017106919 A1)
SAHA (WO 2024165409 A1)
KOLYKHALIN (RU 2024131707 A)
BOCHKAREV (RU 2024126371 A)
Salah (GB 2591772 A)
Leung (CN 101326542 A)
Eryurek (CN 1761919 A)
Shuai (CN 118521226 A)
Yang (CN 117575564 A)
Martin (CN 109074034 A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HICHAM SKHOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-9466. The examiner can normally be reached Normal schedule: Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/HICHAM SKHOUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
