DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to the amendment filed 07/22/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9, 12-22 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted by Applicant are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant submits on page 10 of the remarks that the claims as amended recite significantly more than an abstract idea, and as such are directed to statutory subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that when determining whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B the analysis takes into consideration whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims merely recite the use of a generic computer to perform generic computer functions of storing and transmitting data. These generic computer functions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that under the analysis of claims under step 2A of the Alice framework, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the present claims are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process. Under the 2019 PEG, the “mental processes” grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Per the October 2019 Updated Guidance examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-9, 12-22, the independent claims (claims 1, 13 and 19) are directed, in part, to a system, a method and a non-transitory computer readable medium for industrial maintenance planning. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-9, 21 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine, claims 13-18, 22 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process and claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to a memory that stores executable components and work order data defining work orders for maintenance tasks performed on industrial assets within an industrial facility; and a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components, the executable components comprising: a monitoring component configured to monitor industrial asset data generated by the industrial assets and behavior data indicating a location of a technician over time; an analysis component configured to, in response to determining that the location of the technician has been within a defined distance of an industrial asset for a duration of time that exceeds a defined duration, instruct a user interface component to render, via a user interface, a query on a client device associated with the technician, wherein the query requests confirmation that the technician is engaged in a maintenance activity on the industrial asset; and a work order generation component configured to, in response to receipt, via interaction with the user interface, of a reply to the query confirming that the technician is engaged in the maintenance activity, generate and schedule a work order for the maintenance activity in the system, wherein the analysis component is further configured to generate and submit, based on a current operating context of the industrial asset determined from the industrial asset data, a prompt directed to a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model designed to obtain a response from the generative Al model used by the work order generation component to formulate a maintenance task to be defined in the work order, the monitoring component is further configured to monitor an amount of time spent by a technician to execute the maintenance task defined by the work order, and the analysis component is further configured to record the amount of time in association with the work order as part of the work order data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 recites additional elements system, memory, processor, executable component, monitoring component, analysis component, user interface component, client device, interface; independent claim 13 recites additional elements system, processor, client device, interface; independent claim 19 recites additional elements non-transitory computer-readable medium, system, processor, client device, interface. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 2 and related text and [0041-0043] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “Aspects of the systems, apparatuses, or processes explained in this disclosure can constitute machine-executable components embodied within machine(s), e.g., embodied in one or more computer-readable mediums (or media) associated with one or more machines. Such components, when executed by one or more machines, e.g., computer(s), computing device(s), automation device(s), virtual machine(s), etc., can cause the machine(s) to perform the operations described. Work order tracking system 202 can include a user interface component 204, a work order generation component 206, a device interface component 208, a monitoring component 210, an analysis component 212, an MES interface component 214, a training component 216 one or more processors 220, and memory 224. In various embodiments, one or more of the user interface component 204, work order generation component 206, device interface component 208, monitoring component 210, analysis component 212, MES interface component 214, training component 216, the one or more processors 220, and memory 224 can be electrically and/or communicatively coupled to one another to perform one or more of the functions of the work order tracking system 202. In some embodiments, components 204, 206, 208, 210, 212, and 214, can comprise software instructions stored on memory 224 and executed by processor(s) 218. Work order tracking system 202 may also interact with other hardware and/or software components not depicted in FIG. 2. For example, processor(s) 220 may interact with one or more external user interface devices, such as a keyboard, a mouse, a display monitor, a touchscreen, or other such interface devices. User interface component 204 can be configured to generate user interface displays that receive user input and render output to the user in any suitable format (e.g., visual, audio, tactile, etc.). In some embodiments, user interface component 204 can render these interface displays on a client device (e.g., a laptop computer, tablet computer, smart phone, etc.) that is communicatively connected to the work order tracking system 202 (e.g., via a hardwired or wireless connection). Input data that can be received via user interface component 204 can include, but is not limited to, work order data (e.g., work order data field entries), user interface navigation input, or other such input data.”
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 12-21 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although the prior art made of record discloses systems and methods for defining work and work orders for maintenance performed on industrial assets, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps as recited in the claims: “…a monitoring component configured to monitor industrial asset data generated by the industrial assets and behavior data indicating a location of a technician over time; an analysis component configured to, in response to determining that the location of the technician has been within a defined distance of an industrial asset for a duration of time that exceeds a defined duration, instruct a user interface component to render, via a user interface, a query on a client device associated with the technician, wherein the query requests confirmation that the technician is engaged in a maintenance activity on the industrial asset; and a work order generation component configured to, in response to receipt, via interaction with the user interface, of a reply to the query confirming that the technician is engaged in the maintenance activity, generate and schedule a work order for the maintenance activity in the system, wherein the analysis component is further configured to generate and submit, based on a current operating context of the industrial asset determined from the industrial asset data, a prompt directed to a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model designed to obtain a response from the generative Al model used by the work order generation component to formulate a maintenance task to be defined in the work order…”
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm 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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
