DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed August 31, 2026. Claims 1, 4, and 6–10 are amended; claims 20–25 are newly added. Claims 1–25 are currently pending, of which claims 13–19 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claim 7 for informalities. Accordingly, the previous objection to claim 7 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejections of claims 1–12 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. Accordingly, the previous rejections of claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s Response necessitates new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
With respect to the previous rejections of claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant’s remarks are directed to amended subject matter, which is addressed for the first time herein. Examiner directs Applicant to the updated rejection presented below.
With respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection asserted below.
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 and 20–25 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 received sensor data, operation information, observation information, and work status information” in the element for “updating the asset health scores”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “updating the asset health scores based on the the operation information, the observation information, and the work status information”.
Claim 1 further recites “receiving work status information … within prescribed timeframes”. However, claim 1 subsequently recites “decreasing a corresponding asset health score … within prescribed timeframes”. Examiner submits that the second recitation of “prescribed timeframes” renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce second, different “prescribed timeframes”.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “decreasing a corresponding asset health score … within the prescribed timeframes”.
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 and 20–25, which depend from claim 1, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–12 and 20–25 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 20 recites “a respective asset” in line 1. However, claim 1, from which claim 20 depends, previously recites “a respective asset” in the element for “updating the asset health scores”. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce second, different “respective asset”.
Claim 20 further recites “the criticality score” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 20 is interpreted as reciting “for [[a]] the respective asset of the plurality of assets, the hierarchy of systems and subsystems within the facility includes a unit containing a subsystem that contains the respective asset, and wherein [[the]] a criticality score for the respective asset is based on a combination of (i) a criticality of the unit to the facility, (ii) a criticality of the subsystem to the unit, and (iii) a criticality of the respective asset to the subsystem.”.
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 and 20–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–12 and 20–25 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”; “receiving observation information corresponding to the plurality of assets”; “receiving work status information indicating whether work orders scheduled for the plurality of assets have been performed within prescribed timeframes”; “updating the asset health scores based on the received sensor data, operation information, observation information, and work status information, wherein updating the asset health scores includes, for a respective asset of the plurality of assets, decreasing a corresponding asset health score in response to one or more work orders scheduled for the respective asset not having been performed within prescribed timeframes”; “identifying criticality scores for the plurality of assets in the facility, wherein each of the criticality scores indicates 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 indicates a risk posed to 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 identified 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 1–12 and 20–25 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 1–12 and 20–25 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, sensors, an observation user interface, an asset ranking user interface, and steps for accessing from a database, receiving operation information from the plurality of assets, and receiving real-time sensor data from the sensors. 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 11–12 and 21–25 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include instructions executed as a configuration or application (claim 11), instructions executed separate and configured to interface with the APM system over one or more networks (claim 12), sensor types (claims 21–23), a work status user interface (claim 24), and an automated device (claim 25). 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 11–12 and 21–25 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–10 and 20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–10 and 20 depend. As a result, claims 2–10 and 20 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, sensors, an observation user interface, an asset ranking user interface, and steps for accessing from a database, receiving operation information from the plurality of assets, and receiving real-time sensor data from the sensors. 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 11–12 and 21–25 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include instructions executed as a configuration or application (claim 11), instructions executed separate and configured to interface with the APM system over one or more networks (claim 12), sensor types (claims 21–23), a work status user interface (claim 24), and an automated device (claim 25). 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 11–12 and 21–25 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–10 and 20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–10 and 20 depend. As a result, claims 2–10 and 20 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 and 20–25 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, 11–12, and 22–25 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), and in further view of Mehrotra et al. (U.S. 2022/0100173).
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);
receiving, from the plurality of assets, operation information of the plurality of assets (See paragraphs 31–32 and 71, wherein operation data describing a configuration of the device is received from the asset; see also FIG. 1 and paragraph 41);
receiving, from sensors that are configured to monitor the plurality of assets, real- time sensor data corresponding to the plurality of assets (See paragraphs 32 and 71, wherein sensor data is received in real-time);
receiving, through an observation user interface, observation information corresponding to the plurality of assets (See paragraphs 32–33 and 44, in view of paragraph 81, wherein observation data is entered by a user through a GUI);
receiving work status information indicating work orders scheduled for the plurality of assets within prescribed timeframes (See paragraphs 91–92, wherein services misses are determined for each planning window);
identifying criticality scores for the plurality of assets in the facility, wherein each of the criticality scores indicates 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);
updating the asset health scores based on the received sensor data, operation information, and observation information (See paragraphs 31–32, in view of paragraphs 71 and 81, wherein failure scores are updated based on sensor data, operational data, and data entered by the user);
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 indicates a risk posed to 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 FIG. 1 and paragraph 67, wherein results are reported to a user on a GUI). 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 an asset ranking 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. Jan and Kilaru do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Mehrotra discloses receiving, from the plurality of assets, operation information indicating current states of operation of the plurality of assets (See paragraph 93, wherein the system receives operational status information for the assets);
receiving work status information indicating whether work orders scheduled for the plurality of assets have been performed within prescribed timeframes (See paragraphs 125–126, wherein a set of maintenance actions are determined according to a remaining lifecycle of an asset or asset component); and
updating the asset health scores based on the received sensor data, operation information, and work status information, wherein updating the asset health scores includes, for a respective asset of the plurality of assets, decreasing a corresponding asset health score in response to one or more work orders scheduled for the respective asset not having been performed within prescribed timeframes (See paragraphs 125–126, wherein operational health of an asset is determined based on operational duration and maintenance actions, and wherein operational health is weighted according to missed maintenance actions; see also paragraph 48, wherein sensor data is disclosed).
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. Mehrotra discloses a system directed to monitoring components of an automation system, including monitoring component health. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing asset maintenance. The technique of utilizing operational and work status information 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 Mehrotra would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Mehrotra 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 operational and work status information 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.
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 identifying the plurality of assets 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 identifying the plurality of assets 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; see also paragraphs 21–22).
Claim 7: Jan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a given asset health score of a given asset is in response to a data change associated with the given asset (See paragraph 73, in view of paragraphs 71–72, wherein failure metrics are generated based on data updated in real time; see also paragraph 81).
Claim 8: Jan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the asset health scores are updated periodically as a batch process (See paragraph 73, in view of paragraphs 71–72, wherein failure metrics are generated based on retrieving operational data statically).
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 each 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 22: Jan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the sensors include one or more temperature sensors (See paragraph 71, wherein temperature sensors are disclosed).
Claim 23: Jan and Kilaru do not expressly disclose the elements of claim 23.
Mehrotra discloses wherein the sensors include one or more cameras (See paragraph 60, wherein cameras are disclosed).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Mehrotra would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 24: Jan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the work status information is received through a work status user interface (See paragraph 90, wherein work status information is manually entered on a user interface).
Claim 25: Jan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the work status information is received from an automated device (See paragraph 71, wherein the device is an ATM).
Claims 10 and 20 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), and in further view of Mehrotra et al. (U.S. 2022/0100173) and Murali et al. (U.S. 2024/0103959).
Claim 10: As disclosed above, Jan, Kilaru, and Mehrotra 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.
Mehrotra discloses wherein: the plurality of assets are each positioned within a hierarchy of systems and subsystems within the facility (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 25–27, wherein the factory includes a hierarchy of areas, cells, and components).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Mehrotra would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Jan, Kilaru, and Mehrotra do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Murali discloses wherein: 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 (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, Kilaru discloses a system directed to managing fleet maintenance based on equipment health and risk, and Mehrotra discloses a system directed to monitoring components of an automation system, including monitoring component health. 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, Kilaru, and Mehrotra 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, Kilaru, and Mehrotra 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, Kilaru, and Mehrotra 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 20: Jan discloses the system of claim 10, wherein, for a respective asset of the plurality of assets, wherein the criticality score for the respective asset is based on a combination of (i) a criticality of the unit to the facility and (ii) a criticality of the subsystem to the unit (See paragraph 25, wherein device criticality is characterized according to location and redundancies within a location). Jan and Kilaru do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Mehrotra discloses wherein, for a respective asset of the plurality of assets, the hierarchy of systems and subsystems within the facility includes a unit containing a subsystem that contains the respective asset (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 25–27, wherein the factory includes a hierarchy of areas, cells, and components).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Mehrotra would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Jan, Kilaru, and Mehrotra do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Murali discloses wherein the criticality score for the respective asset is based on a (iii) a criticality of the respective asset to the subsystem (See FIG. 2 and paragraphs 47 and 59, wherein system elements are arranged hierarchically, and wherein criticality is determined based on network topology applicable to the asset; see also paragraph 62).
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 for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 10.
Claim 21 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 Mehrotra et al. (U.S. 2022/0100173) and SANTOSO et al. (U.S. 2024/0288839).
Claim 21: As disclosed above, Jan, Kilaru, and Mehrotra disclose the elements of claim 1. Although Jan discloses sensors (See citations above), Jan, Kilaru, and Mehrotra do not expressly disclose a vibration sensor.
Santoso discloses wherein the sensors include one or more vibration sensors (Se paragraph 72, wherein vibration sensors are disclosed).
As disclosed above, 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, and Mehrotra discloses a system directed to monitoring components of an automation system, including monitoring component health. Santoso discloses a system directed to evaluating operational performance of an asset to recommend actions. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing asset maintenance. The technique of utilizing vibration sensors is applicable to the systems of Jan, Kilaru, and Mehrotra 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 Santoso would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Santoso to the teachings of Jan, Kilaru, and Mehrotra 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 vibration sensors to Jan, Kilaru, and Mehrotra 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights