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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 limitation "the number of sensors" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the number of sensors" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the number of sensors" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the number of sensors" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 17 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent apparatus Claim 1, product Claim 18 and system Claim 19. Claim 17 recites the limitations of receiving failure information indicating a failed device from one monitoring apparatus of one or more monitoring apparatuses each of which monitors a monitoring target device, the failed device being a device in which a failure has been detected; identifying a similar device that is the monitoring target device similar to the failed device indicated by the failure information; setting, as a target monitoring apparatus, a monitoring apparatus that monitors the similar device among the one or more monitoring apparatuses, and transmitting an instruction signal to increase a transmission amount of operation data of the similar device to the target monitoring apparatus, the instruction signal causing the transmission amount of the operation data to be increased by increasing the number of sensors that acquire the operation data; performing data processing on the operation data; securing an increased amount of a resource used in the data processing due to an increase in the transmission amount of the operation data regarding the similar device; and narrowing down a plurality of the similar devices that have been identified to one or more similar devices for which the resource can be secured when the increased amount of the resource cannot be secured.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes. Collecting data recites concepts performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The failed device, one or more monitoring apparatuses, a monitoring target device, a similar device, a target monitoring apparatus, a monitoring apparatus in Claims 1, 17, 18, and 19 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The data processing in Claims 1, 17, 18, and 19 appears to be just software. Claims 1, 18, and 19 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite failed device, one or more monitoring apparatuses, a monitoring target device, a similar device, a target monitoring apparatus, a monitoring apparatus in Claims 1, 17, 18, and 19 and the data processing in Claims 1, 17, 18, and 19. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1 and 17-19 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0016, 0054, 0056] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished. If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1 and 17-19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-16 and 20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 17-19 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claim 2 further details a normal mode; Claims 3 and 4 further detail the monitoring; Claims 5-8 further details the display of similarity information; Claims 9-16 and 20 further detail the display of operation data without adding significantly more. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-16 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References A and B cited on PTO-892 illustrate the state of the art at the time of invention but fail to disclose identifying a plurality of similar devices for increasing the amount of resource.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
9/21/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights