DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final, First Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed February 2, 2026. Claims 1–19 are currently pending, of which claims 13–19 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1–12, in the reply filed on February 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “operation information for the assets” and “observations of the assets”. However, claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, previously recites “the plurality of assets”. Further, claim 7 previously and subsequently recites “the plurality of assets”. In view of the above, Examiner recommends amending claim 7 to recite “operation information for the plurality of assets” and “observations of the plurality of assets” in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1–12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the ongoing operation” in the element for “determining … operational risk scores”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “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”.
In view of the above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–12, which depend from claim 1, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–12 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “the asset health score” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 7 is interpreted as reciting “wherein [[the]] each asset health score is continually updated”.
Claim 9 recites “the criticality score” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 9 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] each criticality score further indicates”.
Claim 10 recites “the plurality of components” in line 2 and “the criticality score” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 10 is interpreted as reciting “the plurality of assets are each positioned within a hierarchy of systems and subsystems within the facility” and “[[the]] each criticality score is identified based on criticality information relating degrees of importance of systems, subsystems, and assets to each other within each level of the hierarchy”.
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–12 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “asset health scores for a plurality of assets in the facility, wherein each of the asset health scores indicate a likelihood that a corresponding asset will fail or be operationally impaired within a threshold period of time”; “identifying criticality scores 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”; “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; and “outputting 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.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for fundamental economic principles or practices related to mitigating risk and/or managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships between people because the elements describe a process for assessing operational asset risks and recommending risk mitigation actions. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2–12 further describe the process for assessing operational asset risks and recommending risk mitigation actions and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–12 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include one or more processors, one or more storage devices, a database, a user interface, and a step for accessing from a database. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 7 and 11–12 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include sensor signals (claim 7), instructions executed as a configuration or application (claim 11), and instructions executed separate and configured to interface with the APM system over one or more networks (claim 12). When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 7 and 11–12 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–6 and 8–10 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–6 and 8–10 depend. As a result, claims 2–6 and 8–10 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include one or more processors, one or more storage devices, a database, a user interface, and a step for accessing from a database. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 7 and 11–12 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include sensor signals (claim 7), instructions executed as a configuration or application (claim 11), and instructions executed separate and configured to interface with the APM system over one or more networks (claim 12). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 7 and 11–12 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–6 and 8–10 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–6 and 8–10 depend. As a result, claims 2–6 and 8–10 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–9 and 11–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jan et al. (U.S. 2020/0019935) in view of Kilaru et al. (U.S. 2019/0135318).
Claim 1: Jan discloses a computing system for assessing operational risk in a facility (Examiner notes that language indicating “in a facility” is afforded limited patentable weight because the element denotes no more than an intended field of use without limiting the claimed computing system), the system comprising:
one or more processors (See FIG. 7 and paragraph 95); and
one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (See FIG. 7 and paragraph 95) comprising:
asset health scores for a plurality of assets in the facility, wherein each of the asset health scores indicate a likelihood that a corresponding asset will fail or be operationally impaired within a threshold period of time (See paragraph 81, wherein a likelihood of failure within a time window is predicted for each hardware device and each component within the hardware device; see also FIG. 1, FIG. 3, and paragraph 22);
identifying criticality scores 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 (See paragraphs 25 and 54–56, wherein a criticality measure for each device is determined);
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 (See paragraphs 92 and 69, wherein a regression model weights the predicted failure values according to business impact); see also paragraphs 3 and 29);
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 (See paragraphs 92–93, wherein a maintenance schedule is generated according to the regression model outputs);
ranking the plurality of assets based on the operational risk scores (See paragraph 92, wherein the regression model prioritizes each hardware device); and
outputting information identifying the plurality of assets ranked based on the operational risk scores, wherein the information includes the one or more actions for each of the plurality of assets and the action prioritizations for the one or more actions (See paragraphs 92–93, wherein a maintenance schedule is generated according to the regression model outputs, and wherein the schedule identifies the ranked assets and indicates actions and action prioritizations; see also paragraph 67, wherein results are reported to a user). Jan does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Kilaru discloses accessing, from a database for an asset performance management (APM) system, asset health for a plurality of assets (See paragraphs 32 and 57, wherein equipment health data is obtained from third party systems); and
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 (See paragraph 35, in view of paragraph 32, wherein generated risk scores are presented to a fleet owner or manager, and wherein the fleet owner or manager utilize a graphical user interface to view reports; see also paragraph 59).
Jan discloses a system directed to scheduling maintenance based on asset health and impact. Kilaru discloses a system directed to managing fleet maintenance based on equipment health and risk. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing asset maintenance. The technique of utilizing an accessible database and user interface outputs is applicable to the system of Jan as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing asset maintenance.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kilaru would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Kilaru to the teachings of Jan would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate asset maintenance management into similar systems. Further, applying an accessible database and user interface outputs to Jan would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and improved management.
Claim 2: Jan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise corrective actions (See paragraph 93, in view of paragraphs 27 and 41, wherein scheduling is performed in the context of available parts, affected components, and open tickets).
Claim 3: Jan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise maintenance actions (See paragraph 93, wherein a maintenance schedule is generated).
Claim 4: Although Jan discloses scheduling work orders for the one or more actions (See paragraph 93, in view of paragraphs 27 and 41, wherein scheduling is performed in the context of available parts, affected components, and open tickets), Jan does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Kilaru discloses wherein the information includes one or more selectable features, selection of which schedules work orders (See paragraphs 40–43, wherein the user initiates a request for repairs using the user interface).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kilaru would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 5: Jan discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the APM system is configured to track performance of the work orders (See paragraphs 93 and 66, wherein maintenance misses are monitored during ongoing failure prediction monitoring; see also paragraph 79, wherein historical tickets are disclosed).
Claim 6: Jan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the information includes the asset health scores and the criticality scores (See paragraphs 66–67, in view of paragraphs 81 and 54–56, wherein results are reported to a user, and wherein the information includes asset failure predictions and impact values).
Claim 7: Jan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the asset health score is continually updated (See paragraph 81, wherein data is updated in real time) based on sensor signals related to the plurality of assets (See paragraphs 71 and 32, wherein sensor data is received), operation information for the assets (See paragraph 71, wherein operation data is received), observations of the assets (See paragraphs 32–33 and 44, wherein observational data is received), and work status information indicating whether work orders scheduled for the plurality of assets have been performed and completed within prescribed timeframes (See paragraphs 93 and 66, wherein maintenance misses are monitored during ongoing failure prediction monitoring).
Claim 8: Jan discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the asset health score for an asset is decreased in response to work orders scheduled for the asset not having been performed within the prescribed timeframes (See paragraphs 93–93 and 66, wherein failure prediction monitoring is performed periodically, wherein the system minimizes impact with respect to missed maintenance actions resulting in failed assets, and wherein asset failure indicates a decrease in asset health).
Claim 9: Jan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein: the facility is part of a plurality of facilities that service a common region, and the criticality score further indicates a degree of importance of the facility to the service provided to the common region (See paragraphs 25–26, wherein criticality is based on location and clustering within a location).
Claim 11: Jan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are executed as a configuration or application that is run on the APM system (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 95).
Claim 12: Jan does not expressly disclose the elements of claim 12.
Kilaru discloses wherein the instructions are executed separate from the APM system and are configured to interface with the APM system over one or more networks (See paragraph 30, wherein the system is deployed as a distributed system).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kilaru would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jan et al. (U.S. 2020/0019935) in view of Kilaru et al. (U.S. 2019/0135318), and in further view of Murali et al. (U.S. 2024/0103959).
Claim 10: As disclosed above, Jan and Kilaru disclose the elements of claim 1. Although Jan further discloses components positioned within a hierarchy (See paragraphs 22 and 31, wherein failure prediction is performed with respect to devices and subsystem components), Jan and Kilaru do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Murali discloses wherein: the plurality of components are each positioned within a hierarchy of systems and subsystems within the facility, the criticality score is identified based on criticality information relating degrees of importance of systems, subsystems, and assets to each other within each level of the hierarchy (See FIG. 2 and paragraphs 47 and 59, wherein system elements are arranged hierarchically, and wherein criticality is determined based on network topology).
As disclosed above, Jan discloses a system directed to scheduling maintenance based on asset health and impact, and Kilaru discloses a system directed to managing fleet maintenance based on equipment health and risk. Murali discloses a system directed to scheduling infrastructure maintenance based on predicted degradations. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing asset maintenance. The technique of utilizing hierarchical importance is applicable to the systems of Jan and Kilaru as they each share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing asset maintenance.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Murali would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Murali to the teachings of Jan and Kilaru would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate asset maintenance management into similar systems. Further, applying hierarchical importance to Jan and Kilaru would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and improved management.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PHAN et al. (U.S. 2024/0231983) discloses a system directed to optimizing asset replacement based on failure risk analysis;
ZHOU et al. (U.S. 2024/0144052) discloses a system directed to optimizing asset maintenance based on a risk estimate;
Schuck et al. (U.S. 2023/0067083) discloses a system directed to adjusting operations and scheduling maintenance in a manufacturing plant based on a risk assessment; and
Wilber et al. (U.S. 2016/0282859) discloses a system directed to maintaining equipment in an industrial environment based on equipment criticality and risk.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623