DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 .
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
This action is a Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 04/06/2026.
Claims 28, 39, and 45 have been amended
Claims 28-47 remain pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims in the previous office action have been maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims in the previous office action have been maintained.
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 28-38 are directed towards a method, claims 39-44 are directed towards a tracking controller, and claims 45-47 are directed towards a system, all of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
With respect to claims 28-47, the independent claims (claims 28, 39, and 45) are directed to managing and scheduling of maintenance repair, In independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 28, A method, comprising:
determining, via the tracking controller, that an unscheduled shopping event associated with the equipment has occurred based on the received signal;
determining, via the tracking controller, a usage metric associated with the cumulative use of the part of the equipment based on the comparison;
determining, via the tracking controller, that the part of the equipment is a bad actor component based on the usage metric and a predefined threshold;
these steps fall within the fundamental economic principles or practices (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Then, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as recited, described or set forth above, could be argued as implementable through computer-aided mental processes, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a) ¶3, 3), and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, such as by computer-aided evaluation, judgement and observation.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation observation and evaluations, then it falls within the ”mental processes”; and fundamental economic principles or practices falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, If the identified limitation(s) falls within any of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, the analysis should proceed to Prong Two. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of controller, sensor, signal, equipment, (Claim 39 recite additional elements controller, sensor, processor, memory, signal, equipment); (Claim 45 recite additional elements repairing system, control system, , processor, memory, signal, equipment). The claims recite the steps are performed by the controller, sensor, signal, equipment.
The limitations of
receiving, via a tracking controller, a signal associated with equipment performance from a sensor;
comparing, via the tracking controller, a cumulative use of a part of the equipment during a first period of time associated with the unscheduled shopping event to a determined cumulative use of a plurality of comparable parts used by a plurality of comparable equipment during a second period of time of comparable length to the first period of time;
generating, via the tracking controller, an action for autonomous remediation of the bad actor component.
are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the limitations are recited as being performed by controller, sensor, signal, equipment. The controller, sensor, signal, equipment, are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), controller, sensor, signal, equipment are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The controller, sensor, signal, equipment are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
receiving, via a tracking controller, a signal associated with equipment performance from a sensor;
comparing, via the tracking controller, a cumulative use of a part of the equipment during a first period of time associated with the unscheduled shopping event to a determined cumulative use of a plurality of comparable parts used by a plurality of comparable equipment during a second period of time of comparable length to the first period of time;
generating, via the tracking controller, an action for autonomous remediation of the bad actor component.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts 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 are the controller, sensor, signal, equipment. The additional elements were 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 outputting.
However, a 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 takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of
receiving, via a tracking controller, a signal associated with equipment performance from a sensor;
comparing, via the tracking controller, a cumulative use of a part of the equipment during a first period of time associated with the unscheduled shopping event to a determined cumulative use of a plurality of comparable parts used by a plurality of comparable equipment during a second period of time of comparable length to the first period of time;
generating, via the tracking controller, an action for autonomous remediation of the bad actor component.
are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to transmitting data and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 10 As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a controller, sensor, signal, equipment to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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).
Dependent claims 29-38, 40-44, 46, and 47 are not directed to any additional claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims. In this case, the claims are rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claim 29 recites tracking controller to transmit repair action; claim 30 recite repairing system for implementing repair action; claims 34, 44 recite tracking controller to change schedule; claim 35 recites control system to deviating routes; claim 36 recites tracking controller to transmitting a signal; claim 40, 41 recites processor and tracking controller to determining a usage metric and transmit repair action. The dependent claims 29-38, 40-44, 46, and 47 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 29-38, 40-44, 46, and 47 recites controller, sensor, signal, equipment which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and analyzing data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 29-38, 40-44, 46, and 47 recites controller, sensor, signal, equipment which merely recites an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 29-38, 40-44, 46, and 47 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claims 28, 39, and 45. Therefore claims 29-38, 40-44, 46, and 47 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 of this title, 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 28-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Number US 7356393, Schlatre, et al. to hereinafter Schlatre in view of United States Patent Number US 8170893, Rossi.
Referring to Claim 28, Schlatre teaches a method, comprising: receiving, via a tracking controller, a signal associated with equipment performance from a sensor (
Schlatre: Col.4 Ln. 1-10, The system is a task integrated system for providing scheduled service: the system monitors the equipment fleet to collect operating parameters (e.g. meter readings or odometer readings) to detect service triggers, provides designated multiple users an alert that a particular item of equipment requires service, provides a means to initiate and track the service transaction (open a service work order, update the work order, and close the work order) and to archive the service transaction information for later use.
Schlatre: Col. 26 Ln. 18-23, Service History tab is designed to detail previously performed equipment maintenance for individual equipment items, both Preventative Maintenance and unscheduled Repair Service. );
Schlatre describes the tracking and monitoring of problems and deficiencies for maintenance and repairs of equipment.
comparing, via the tracking controller, a cumulative use of a part of the equipment (
Schlatre: Col. 4 Ln. 30-37, The stored data is made available to interested parties to assist in maintenance tasks, track/compare parts usage data, compile product/maintenance/part/labor statistics, product comparisons, area usage requirements, and other relevant data analysis. Data analysis routines are provided to allow prediction/forecasting of future maintenance requirements, inventory needs and/or labor requirements.
Schlatre: Col. 26 Ln. 19-22, The Service History tab is designed to detail previously performed equipment maintenance for individual equipment items, both Preventative Maintenance and unscheduled Repair Service.
Schlatre: Col. 28 Ln. 40-45, Usage Date Range: The earliest and latest date that the meter was updated within the specified date range.
Total Usage: The current meter/odometer reading of the equipment item.
Units: The typical operating units (i.e., hours, miles, etc.).
Avg Daily Usage: The average daily usage of the equipment item.);
Schlatre describes determining the total amount of use time for equipment and equipment items when determining breakdowns and repair time.
during a first period of time associated with the unscheduled shopping event (See Rossi) to a determined cumulative use of a plurality of comparable parts used by a plurality of comparable equipment during a second period of time of comparable length to the first period of time (
Schlatre: Col. 7 Ln. 17-25, In the present embodiment, each update (value/date and time of update) is stored in the database. Also stored are the maintenance alert values or intervals (in general, the OEM's recommended maintenance periods, such as 30 hour interval, or 1000 mile interval, absolute engine hours or odometer readings (i.e. at 10,000 hours etc) as modified by the user).
Schlatre: Col. 27 Ln. 25-32, The average expected time that it should take to complete expected maintenance work for this model number/description for the date range specified across the rollup. “Expected time” is calculated using standard service repair times (SRT's) as supplied by the manufacturer.).
Schlatre describes the multiple data points to determine the forecasting of maintenance of breakdowns and failures, which includes incremental change points as well as multiple time periods through the maintenance periods, in which the Examiner is interpreting incremental change points as increasing or decreasing change points.
determining, via the tracking controller, a usage metric associated with the cumulative use of the part of the equipment based on the comparison (
Schlatre: Col. 4 Ln. 30-37, The stored data is made available to interested parties to assist in maintenance tasks, track/compare parts usage data, compile product/maintenance/part/labor statistics, product comparisons, area usage requirements, and other relevant data analysis. Data analysis routines are provided to allow prediction/forecasting of future maintenance requirements, inventory needs and/or labor requirements.
Schlatre describes analyzing parts when producing maintenance reports, which includes maintenance task and repair that consist of usage amounts.
determining, via the tracking controller, that the part of the equipment is a bad actor component based (See Rossi) on the usage metric and a predefined threshold and (
Schlatre: Col. 4 Ln. 30-37, The stored data is made available to interested parties to assist in maintenance tasks, track/compare parts usage data, compile product/maintenance/part/labor statistics, product comparisons, area usage requirements, and other relevant data analysis. Data analysis routines are provided to allow prediction/forecasting of future maintenance requirements, inventory needs and/or labor requirements.
Schlatre: Col. 10 Ln. 22-36, parameters are accessible for initialization/setup purposes through a RS232 serial interface. In operation, the VDM monitors the pertinent vehicle characteristic (hour meter/odometer/OBDII or other value) and updates its internal values. When the vehicle is within communication range of the access point, the VDM can communicate its monitored values through the access point to the GCS host server. The VDM can be configured to transmit based on the presence of an updated or modified status since last transmission, the crossing of a stored threshold value (for instance, 10 engine hours since last transmission), a query from the GCS system, or other programmed event. );
Schlatre describes analyzing parts when producing maintenance reports, which includes maintenance task and repair that consist of usage amounts. Additionally, Schlatre describes the data values that includes operating times and thresholds.
an action for autonomous remediation of the bad actor (See Rossi) component (
Schlatre: Col. 4 Ln. 26-42, The stored data is made available to interested parties to assist in maintenance tasks, track/compare parts usage data, compile product/maintenance/part/labor statistics, product comparisons, area usage requirements, and other relevant data analysis. Data analysis routines are provided to allow prediction/forecasting of future maintenance requirements, inventory needs and/or labor requirements. Additional data analysis routines are used to mine relevant information from the stored equipment information, such as a routine to assist in identifying equipment subject to a manufacturer's recall or rework order, and once identified, undertaking this non-routine maintenance item.
Schlatre: Col. 23 Ln. 35-51, Additionally, users must choose the forecast window or time frame, currently a date range or meter range, to include in the forecast. A default timeline window of 30 days from the current date is provided during which maintenance requirements (and hence parts) are to be forecast. However, the user may modify this window by specifying either (a) the number of days during which service is predicted to occur (other than 30) or (b) specify the stopping date, using the current date as the starting point. Forecast results will include all of those services that will become due from the current date through the date specified. For instance, the system will use prior vehicle maintenance trigger data to develop an “average daily usage.” This average daily usage is then multiplied by the number of days specified by the user to arrive at a predicted maintenance trigger data. It then takes the difference between this predicted trigger value and the current last known trigger value to determine if one or more maintenance service cycles is expected.).
Schlatre describes the automation implementation for predicting breakdowns and repairs.
Schlatre and Rossi both teach equipment during a first period of time
Schlatre does not explicitly teach determining, via the tracking controller, that an unscheduled shopping event associated with the equipment has occurred based on the received signal; equipment during a first period of time associated with the unscheduled shopping event; part of the equipment is a bad actor component; generating, via the tracking controller, an action associated with the bad actor component;
However, Rossi teaches these limitations
determining, via the tracking controller, that an unscheduled shopping event associated with the equipment has occurred based on the received signal (
Rossi: Fig. 7-9, Describes determining one or more parts of the equipment that cause a failure
Rossi: Col. 20 Ln. 13-20, maintenance losses have been approached from several different perspectives. This problem has been partially addressed by a broad variety of methodologies such as preventive maintenance (PM) also known as Time Based Maintenance (TBM), Predictive Maintenance (PdM), Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), Root Failure Cause Analysis (RFCA) or Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) and Lean Maintenance.
Rossi: Col. 27 Ln. 58-67, Researching: Using a 5Y (Five Why) problem solving method for obtaining knowledge from disassembling a worn out component and performing a wear cause analysis (WCA) and from troubleshooting experience by subsequently asking why a breakdown on an asset occurred. For example when a key piece of equipment was removed during an R&R project, the following questions need to be answered. Why did the equipment wear? Because the circuit board voltage was oscillating. Why did the circuit voltage oscillating? Because it overheated. Why did it overheat? Because it wasn't getting enough air. Why was it not getting enough air? Because the filter wasn't changed. Why was the filter not changed? Because there was no preventive maintenance schedule to do so.
Rossi: Col. 20 Ln. 13-20, c) Training tools for repair/replacement/troubleshooting using in house experience. Performing components' Root Failure Cause Analysis (RFCA) consisting of disassembling a repaired or replaced unit, documenting findings from RFCA, determining which technologies or modifications are necessary for detecting wear again in a effectively and efficiently. These tools can take the shape of books, films, pictures, etc. and are to be used as elements to improve the capacity of technical personnel.
Rossi: Col. 32 Ln. 21-29, Differential MP&L; total losses due to HMP&L; total losses due to RRATC; total losses due to SMP&L; total losses due to TMP&L; 5S4M/5S4P/MT profits and losses using RRATC and the difference between profits and losses; total number of work orders including all modification types; total number of work orders completed grouped according to the following types: R&R, R&RP, M and I; the division of a compiled list into “Criticality or priority groups”;);
Rossi describes techniques for determining breakdowns and the cause of the breakdown which includes metrics for maintenance that consist of determining the total number of breakdowns.
equipment during a first period of time associated with the unscheduled shopping event
Rossi: Fig. 7-9, Describes determining one or more parts of the equipment that cause a failure
Rossi: Col. 20 Ln. 13-20, maintenance losses have been approached from several different perspectives. This problem has been partially addressed by a broad variety of methodologies such as preventive maintenance (PM) also known as Time Based Maintenance (TBM), Predictive Maintenance (PdM), Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), Root Failure Cause Analysis (RFCA) or Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) and Lean Maintenance.
Rossi: Col. 27 Ln. 58-67, Researching: Using a 5Y (Five Why) problem solving method for obtaining knowledge from disassembling a worn out component and performing a wear cause analysis (WCA) and from troubleshooting experience by subsequently asking why a breakdown on an asset occurred. For example when a key piece of equipment was removed during an R&R project, the following questions need to be answered. Why did the equipment wear? Because the circuit board voltage was oscillating. Why did the circuit voltage oscillating? Because it overheated. Why did it overheat? Because it wasn't getting enough air. Why was it not getting enough air? Because the filter wasn't changed. Why was the filter not changed? Because there was no preventive maintenance schedule to do so.
Rossi: Col. 20 Ln. 13-20, c) Training tools for repair/replacement/troubleshooting using in house experience. Performing components' Root Failure Cause Analysis (RFCA) consisting of disassembling a repaired or replaced unit, documenting findings from RFCA, determining which technologies or modifications are necessary for detecting wear again in a effectively and efficiently. These tools can take the shape of books, films, pictures, etc. and are to be used as elements to improve the capacity of technical personnel.
Rossi: Col. 32 Ln. 21-29, Differential MP&L; total losses due to HMP&L; total losses due to RRATC; total losses due to SMP&L; total losses due to TMP&L; 5S4M/5S4P/MT profits and losses using RRATC and the difference between profits and losses; total number of work orders including all modification types; total number of work orders completed grouped according to the following types: R&R, R&RP, M and I; the division of a compiled list into “Criticality or priority groups”;);
Rossi describes techniques for determining breakdowns and the cause of the breakdown which includes metrics for maintenance that consist of determining the total number of breakdowns
part of the equipment is a bad actor component; generating, via the tracking controller, an action for autonomous remediation of the bad actor component (
Rossi: Col. 20 Ln. 13-20, Troubleshooting time is the time that takes to find the source of the breakdown. This may involve questioning the operator about the failure mode (how did the asset fail to perform or symptoms the operator may had noticed before the breakdown). May also require testing electrical, mechanical, hydraulic or other components using testing instruments, reviewing blueprints, SOP and OEM manuals.
Rossi: Col. 24 Ln. 52-58, Searching for a replacement/repairing part as soon as an alarm trips ensures its immediate procurement avoiding logistic losses resulting from searching, locating and testing the part when the line is down. This is accomplished by flagging a CMMS or printing a part searching request when a technology trips and alarm and this alarm is further confirmed
Rossi: Col. 27 Ln. 58-67, Researching: Using a 5Y (Five Why) problem solving method for obtaining knowledge from disassembling a worn out component and performing a wear cause analysis (WCA) and from troubleshooting experience by subsequently asking why a breakdown on an asset occurred. For example when a key piece of equipment was removed during an R&R project, the following questions need to be answered. Why did the equipment wear? Because the circuit board voltage was oscillating. Why did the circuit voltage oscillating? Because it overheated. Why did it overheat? Because it wasn't getting enough air. Why was it not getting enough air? Because the filter wasn't changed. Why was the filter not changed? Because there was no preventive maintenance schedule to do so.)
Rossi describes determining breakdowns, the cause of the breakdown which includes bad actors, and the repair of the breakdown.
Schlatre and Rossi are all directed to the analysis of equipment maintenance (See Schlatre: Col. 2 Ln. 15-60; Rossi: Col. 10, Col. 34 Ln. 14-29). Schlatre discloses an additional example of networking communication for equipment can be considered (See Schlatre: Col. 5 Ln. 38-63,). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schlatre, which teaches detecting and repairing equipment problems in view of Rossi, to efficiently apply analysis of equipment maintenance to improving the capability to determining the equipment root cause analysis and corrections. (See Rossi at Col. 10 Ln. 9-45; Col. 31 and 32).
Referring to Claim 29, Schlatre teaches the method of claim 28, wherein the action comprises a repair action to be performed by a repairing system communicatively coupled to the tracking controller, and wherein the method further comprises:
Schlatre does not explicitly teach transmitting, via the tracking controller, the repair action to the repairing system.
However, Rossi teaches transmitting, via the tracking controller, the repair action to the repairing system (
Rossi: Col. 20 Ln. 13-20, Troubleshooting time is the time that takes to find the source of the breakdown. This may involve questioning the operator about the failure mode (how did the asset fail to perform or symptoms the operator may had noticed before the breakdown). May also require testing electrical, mechanical, hydraulic or other components using testing instruments, reviewing blueprints, SOP and OEM manuals.
Rossi: Col. 24 Ln. 52-58, Searching for a replacement/repairing part as soon as an alarm trips ensures its immediate procurement avoiding logistic losses resulting from searching, locating and testing the part when the line is down. This is accomplished by flagging a CMMS or printing a part searching request when a technology trips and alarm and this alarm is further confirmed).
Rossi describes determining the repair actions needed.
Referring to Claim 30, Schlatre teaches the method of claim 29, further comprising:
autonomously implementing, via the repairing system, the repair action to remediate future unscheduled shopping events associated with the equipment (
Schlatre: Col. 4 Ln. 30-37, The stored data is made available to interested parties to assist in maintenance tasks, track/compare parts usage data, compile product/maintenance/part/labor statistics, product comparisons, area usage requirements, and other relevant data analysis. Data analysis routines are provided to allow prediction/forecasting of future maintenance requirements, inventory needs and/or labor requirements.
Schlatre: Col. 6 Ln. 10-30, a system that helps automate the tasks of identification of equipment currently recommended for preventive maintenance and identification of the actual services recommended for that preventative maintenance trigger would help ensure that routine preventative maintenance is accurately and timely undertaken.
Schlatre: Col. 4 Ln. 26-42, The stored data is made available to interested parties to assist in maintenance tasks, track/compare parts usage data, compile product/maintenance/part/labor statistics, product comparisons, area usage requirements, and other relevant data analysis. Data analysis routines are provided to allow prediction/forecasting of future maintenance requirements, inventory needs and/or labor requirements. Additional data analysis routines are used to mine relevant information from the stored equipment information, such as a routine to assist in identifying equipment subject to a manufacturer's recall or rework order, and once identified, undertaking this non-routine maintenance item.
Schlatre: Col. 23 Ln. 35-51, Additionally, users must choose the forecast window or time frame, currently a date range or meter range, to include in the forecast. A default timeline window of 30 days from the current date is provided during which maintenance requirements (and hence parts) are to be forecast. However, the user may modify this window by specifying either (a) the number of days during which service is predicted to occur (other than 30) or (b) specify the stopping date, using the current date as the starting point. Forecast results will include all of those services that will become due from the current date through the date specified. For instance, the system will use prior vehicle maintenance trigger data to develop an “average daily usage.” This average daily usage is then multiplied by the number of days specified by the user to arrive at a predicted maintenance trigger data. It then takes the difference between this predicted trigger value and the current last known trigger value to determine if one or more maintenance service cycles is expected.).
Schlatre describes the automation implementation for predicting breakdowns and repairs.
Referring to Claim 31, Schlatre teaches the method of claim 30, Schlatre does not explicitly teach wherein autonomously implementing the repair action comprises replacing the bad actor component.
However, Rossi teaches autonomously implementing the repair action comprises replacing the bad actor component (
Rossi: Col. 29 Ln. 13-20, c) Training tools for repair/replacement/troubleshooting using in house experience. Performing components' Root Failure Cause Analysis (RFCA) consisting of disassembling a repaired or replaced unit, documenting findings from RFCA, determining which technologies or modifications are necessary for detecting wear again in a effectively and efficiently. These tools can take the shape of books, films, pictures, etc. and are to be used as elements to improve the capacity of technical personnel.
Rossi: Col. 19 Ln. 20-30, determine work order testing frequencies so assets can be tested frequently enough to accurately trend the wear and stress levels and schedule repairing and replacing activities before the asset's failure.
Rossi: Col. 24 Ln. 52-58, Searching for a replacement/repairing part as soon as an alarm trips ensures its immediate procurement avoiding logistic losses resulting from searching, locating and testing the part when the line is down. This is accomplished by flagging a CMMS or printing a part searching request when a technology trips and alarm and this alarm is further confirmed).
Schlatre and Rossi are all directed to the analysis of equipment maintenance (See Schlatre: Col. 2 Ln. 15-60; Rossi: Col. 10, Col. 34 Ln. 14-29). Schlatre discloses an additional example of networking communication for equipment can be considered (See Schlatre: Col. 5 Ln. 38-63,). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schlatre, which teaches detecting and repairing equipment problems in view of Rossi, to efficiently apply analysis of equipment maintenance to improving the capability to determining the equipment root cause analysis and corrections. (See Rossi at Col. 10 Ln. 9-45; Col. 31 and 32).
Referring to Claim 32, Schlatre teaches the method of claim 31, wherein autonomously implementing the repair action comprises repairing the equipment (
Schlatre: Col. 12 Ln. 35-55, The Touch Station is used to alert shop employees of equipment that is due for scheduled maintenance service and to allow shop employees to open and close work orders indicating that maintenance or a repair has been performed for certain equipment
Schlatre: Col. 15 Ln. 1-15, This button allows the users to include unscheduled repairs made to the selected equipment item in addition to the maintenance services already scheduled.).
Referring to Claim 33, Schlatre teaches the method of claim 28, wherein the action comprises Schlatre does not explicitly teach a directed change to a movement schedule associated with the equipment.
However, Rossi teaches a directed change to a movement schedule associated with the equipment (
Rossi: Col. 4 Ln. 54-65, Planning and Scheduling (P&S): refers to those activities compiled to ensure that the R&R work is performed as effective and efficiently as possible.
Rossi: Col. 19 Ln. 20-30, determine work order testing frequencies so assets can be tested frequently enough to accurately trend the wear and stress levels and schedule repairing and replacing activities before the asset's failure.
Rossi: Col. 26 Ln. 10-35, R&R maintenance activities: (spare is not available); Loss/Profit probability due to maintenance planning: (spare is available but R&R not scheduled); Loss/Profit probability due to production scheduling: (spare is available and R&R is scheduled)).
Rossi describes the scheduling and adjusting of repair equipment.
Schlatre and Rossi are all directed to the analysis of equipment maintenance (See Schlatre: Col. 2 Ln. 15-60; Rossi: Col. 10, Col. 34 Ln. 14-29). Schlatre discloses an additional example of networking communication for equipment can be considered (See Schlatre: Col. 5 Ln. 38-63,). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schlatre, which teaches detecting and repairing equipment problems in view of Rossi, to efficiently apply analysis of equipment maintenance to improving the capability to determining the equipment root cause analysis and corrections. (See Rossi at Col. 10 Ln. 9-45; Col. 31 and 32).
Referring to Claim 34, Schlatre teaches the method of claim 33, wherein the method further comprises Schlatre does not explicitly teach changing, via the tracking controller, the movement schedule associated with the equipment based on the directed change.
However, Rossi teaches changing, via the tracking controller, the movement schedule associated with the equipment based on the directed change (
Rossi: Col. 4 Ln. 54-65, Planning and Scheduling (P&S): refers to those activities compiled to ensure that the R&R work is performed as effective and efficiently as possible.
Rossi: Col. 19 Ln. 20-30, determine work order testing frequencies so assets can be tested frequently enough to accurately trend the wear and stress levels and schedule repairing and replacing activities before the asset's failure.
Rossi: Col. 26 Ln. 10-35, R&R maintenance activities: (spare is not available); Loss/Profit probability due to maintenance planning: (spare is available but R&R not scheduled); Loss/Profit probability due to production scheduling: (spare is available and R&R is scheduled)).
Rossi describes the scheduling and adjusting of repair equipment.
Schlatre and Rossi are all directed to the analysis of equipment maintenance (See Schlatre: Col. 2 Ln. 15-60; Rossi: Col. 10, Col. 34 Ln. 14-29). Schlatre discloses an additional example of networking communication for equipment can be considered (See Schlatre: Col. 5 Ln. 38-63,). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schlatre, which teaches detecting and repairing equipment problems in view of Rossi, to efficiently apply analysis of equipment maintenance to improving the capability to determining the equipment root cause analysis and corrections. (See Rossi at Col. 10 Ln. 9-45; Col. 31 and 32).
Referring to Claim 35, Schlatre teaches the method of claim 34, further comprising:
autonomously deviating, via an autonomous control system of the equipment, the equipment from a current route to a different route based on the directed change to the movement schedule (See Rossi)(
Schlatre: Col. 7 Ln. 24-42, The Quickload routine includes a database of OEM information, including maintenance schedules, replacement parts, model specific repair and user manuals, etc. Quickload, upon implementation requests the user to identify the equipment manufacturer, and once selected, Quickload displays the models available for the selected manufacturer.
Schlatre describes a system for accessing which components are available during maintenance and repair, in which current routine is change to a different routine.
Schlatre does not explicitly teach movement schedule.
However, Rossi teaches movement schedule (
Rossi: Col. 4 Ln. 54-65, Planning and Scheduling (P&S): refers to those activities compiled to ensure that the R&R work is performed as effective and efficiently as possible.
Rossi: Col. 19 Ln. 20-30, determine work order testing frequencies so assets can be tested frequently enough to accurately trend the wear and stress levels and schedule repairing and replacing activities before the asset's failure.
Rossi: Col. 26 Ln. 10-35, R&R maintenance activities: (spare is not available); Loss/Profit probability due to maintenance planning: (spare is available but R&R not scheduled); Loss/Profit probability due to production scheduling: (spare is available and R&R is scheduled)).
Rossi describes the scheduling and adjusting of repair equipment.
Rossi does not explicitly movement schedule. However, the type of schedule constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material and should not be given further patentable weight. The type of schedule, without positive functional recitation as to its distinctive use, amounts to mere labeling of data and does not functionally alter the method of equipment repair. See MPEP 2106.01 [R-5]. Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot lend patentability to an invention that would otherwise have been anticipated by the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability (see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Thus, this further purported limitation of claim 1-12, 14-22, and 14-29 fails to further limit the invention as claimed
Schlatre and Rossi are all directed to the analysis of equipment maintenance (See Schlatre: Col. 2 Ln. 15-60; Rossi: Col. 10, Col. 34 Ln. 14-29). Schlatre discloses an additional example of networking communication for equipment can be considered (See Schlatre: Col. 5 Ln. 38-63,). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schlatre, which teaches detecting and repairing equipment problems in view of Rossi, to efficiently apply analysis of equipment maintenance to improving the capability to determining the equipment root cause analysis and corrections. (See Rossi at Col. 10 Ln. 9-45; Col. 31 and 32).
Referring to Claim 36, Schlatre teaches the method of claim 33, further comprising:
transmitting, via the tracking controller, a signal associated with the directed change to the movement schedule to the equipment (See Rossi). (
Schlatre: Col. 10 Ln. 45-67, The host system can send a signal to the VDM to activate/deactivate a maintenance indicator positioned on the VDM or equipment the VDM is mounted onto. The signal should be sent when the host system determines that maintenance is indicated/working/complete or other suitable status. ).
Schlatre does not explicitly teach movement schedule to the equipment.
However, Rossi teaches movement schedule to the equipment
Rossi: Col. 4 Ln. 54-65, Planning and Scheduling (P&S): refers to those activities compiled to ensure that the R&R work is performed as effective and efficiently as possible.
Rossi: Col. 19 Ln. 20-30, determine work order testing frequencies so assets can be tested frequently enough to accurately trend the wear and stress levels and schedule repairing and replacing activities before the asset's failure.
Rossi: Col. 26 Ln. 10-35, R&R maintenance activities: (spare is not available); Loss/Profit probability due to maintenance planning: (spare is available but R&R not scheduled); Loss/Profit probability due to production scheduling: (spare is available and R&R is scheduled)).
Rossi describes the scheduling and adjusting of repair equipment.
Schlatre and Rossi are all directed to the analysis of equipment maintenance (See Schlatre: Col. 2 Ln. 15-60; Rossi: Col. 10, Col. 34 Ln. 14-29). Schlatre discloses an additional example of networking communication for equipment can be considered (See Schlatre: Col. 5 Ln. 38-63,). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schlatre, which teaches detecting and repairing equipment problems in view of Rossi, to efficiently apply analysis of equipment maintenance to improving the capability to determining the equipment root cause analysis and corrections. (See Rossi at Col. 10 Ln. 9-45; Col. 31 and 32).
Referring to Claim 37, Schlatre teaches the method of claim 36, wherein the equipment comprises at least a portion of a vehicle (
Schlatre: Col. 1 Ln. 48-67, Mechanized equipment used in outdoor applications such as golf courses, agriculture, construction, commercial landscaping and recreation environments, such as municipal parks, is specialized and in many cases unique depending on the intended field of use. Tractors, reel mowers and rotary mowers (collectively “mowers”), aerators, utility vehicles (a modified golf cart), combines, mechanized construction equipment such as bulldozers and backhoes, are some of the specialized equipment used in outdoor applications (as used herein, “mechanized outdoor application vehicles” does not include automobiles, trucks and the like). Manufacturers for such equipment usually customize their products to accommodate a specific use, with each item of equipment having its own unique service and preventative maintenance requirements.
Schlatre: Col. 2 Ln. 15-26, A primary cause of equipment failure leading to unscheduled downtime is the delay or omission of scheduled maintenance. Relevant and timely equipment maintenance helps prevent unscheduled downtime. However, since mechanized outdoor application vehicles do not provide for an integrated system to alert of currently required scheduled maintenance requirements and related required resources, this equipment is virtually never serviced with scheduled maintenance and related required resources at the actual time due. Therefore, equipment is normally serviced either prematurely or belatedly.
Schlatre: Col. 10 Ln. 22-36, parameters are accessible for initialization/setup purposes through a RS232 serial interface. In operation, the VDM monitors the pertinent vehicle characteristic (hour meter/odometer/OBDII or other value) and updates its internal values. When the vehicle is within communication range of the access point, the VDM can communicate its monitored values through the access point to the GCS host server. The VDM can be configured to transmit based on the presence of an updated or modified status since last transmission, the crossing of a stored threshold value (for instance, 10 engine hours since last transmission), a query from the GCS system, or other programmed event. ).
Referring to Claim 38, Schlatre teaches the method of claim 28, further comprising generating a signature for the bad actor component based on the usage metric (
Schlatre: Col. 6 Ln. 11-27, It is generally recognized that equipment lasts longer and performs better when routine scheduled maintenance is performed (routine scheduled maintenance or preventative maintenance is maintenance that is common for each model of a vehicle and the need for maintenance is generally based upon vehicle utilization parameters)
Schlatre: Col. 7 Ln. 24-42, The maintenance alert values are generally stored in the database in the manufacturer's area, as these values are common for each manufacturer's models, but for ease of operation, can be included in the equipment definition area. These maintenance alert values are considered “maintenance interval values” and may be measured as an interval value (every 100 miles, every 10 hours, etc) but may also be measured as an absolute value from a base line (e.g. at 500 hours, at 600 hours, at 100 miles, at 2000 miles, etc).
The equipment history area is that area of the database where work orders are stored that detail the service history (preventative maintenance and/or unscheduled repairs) of the particular equipment item. Items stored include work order number, date of performance (open date, closed date), vehicle ID to identify the equipment, maintenance trigger at time of maintenance, services performed, parts utilized, recommended labor hours, actual labor hours, and other information contained on the work order, as later described.
Schlatre: Col. 27 Ln. 25-32, The average expected time that it should take to complete expected maintenance work for this model number/description for the date range specified across the rollup. “Expected time” is calculated using standard service repair times (SRT's) as supplied by the manufacturer.).
Schlatre describes recognizing the detection and repairing common problems among multiple equipment based on usage. The Examiner is interpreting signature as a common problem or issues
Claim 39 recites limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 28. Regarding a tracking controller, comprising:
a processor (
Schlatre: Col. 1 Ln. 35-, This invention relates to a system for monitoring fleet mechanized equipment, such as turf, agriculture, construction and recreation equipment, to determine when preventative maintenance is required. More particularly, the system includes transponders positioned on each vehicle that send operating characteristics to a central processor that alerts users of required maintenance when the monitored characteristics meet or exceed trigger thresholds); and
a memory to store instructions that, when executed by the processor (
Schlatre: Claim 7. The system according to claim 1 further having a computer readable memory accessible by said means to determine, said memory having stored therein vehicle specific maintenance schedules indicating recommended maintenance intervals for scheduled maintenance, each scheduled maintenance having associated maintenance tasks.),
Referring to Claim 40, Schlatre teaches the tracking controller of claim 39, wherein, when executed by the processor, the instructions further cause the tracking controller to determine a usage metric associated with the cumulative use of the part of the equipment based on the comparison (
Schlatre: Col. 4 Ln. 30-37, The stored data is made available to interested parties to assist in maintenance tasks, track/compare parts usage data, compile product/maintenance/part/labor statistics, product comparisons, area usage requirements, and other relevant data analysis. Data analysis routines are provided to allow prediction/forecasting of future maintenance requirements, inventory needs and/or labor requirements.
Schlatre describes analyzing parts when producing maintenance reports, which includes maintenance task and repair that consist of usage amounts.
Schlatre does not explicitly teach wherein determining that the part of the equipment is a bad actor component is further based on the usage metric.
However, Rossi teaches wherein determining that the part of the equipment is a bad actor component is further based on the usage metric (
Rossi: Col. 20 Ln. 13-20, Troubleshooting time is the time that takes to find the source of the breakdown. This may involve questioning the operator about the failure mode (how did the asset fail to perform or symptoms the operator may had noticed before the breakdown). May also require testing electrical, mechanical, hydraulic or other components using testing instruments, reviewing blueprints, SOP and OEM manuals.
Rossi: Col. 24 Ln. 52-58, Searching for a replacement/repairing part as soon as an alarm trips ensures its immediate procurement avoiding logistic losses resulting from searching, locating and testing the part when the line is down. This is accomplished by flagging a CMMS or printing a part searching request when a technology trips and alarm and this alarm is further confirmed
Rossi: Col. 27 Ln. 58-67, Researching: Using a 5Y (Five Why) problem solving method for obtaining knowledge from disassembling a worn out component and performing a wear cause analysis (WCA) and from troubleshooting experience by subsequently asking why a breakdown on an asset occurred. For example when a key piece of equipment was removed during an R&R project, the following questions need to be answered. Why did the equipment wear? Because the circuit board voltage was oscillating. Why did the circuit voltage oscillating? Because it overheated. Why did it overheat? Because it wasn't getting enough air. Why was it not getting enough air? Because the filter wasn't changed. Why was the filter not changed? Because there was no preventive maintenance schedule to do so.)
Rossi describes determining breakdowns, the cause of the breakdown which includes bad actors, and the repair of the breakdown.
Schlatre and Rossi are all directed to the analysis of equipment maintenance (See Schlatre: Col. 2 Ln. 15-60; Rossi: Col. 10, Col. 34 Ln. 14-29). Schlatre discloses an additional example of networking communication for equipment can be considered (See Schlatre: Col. 5 Ln. 38-63,). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schlatre, which teaches detecting and repairing equipment problems in view of Rossi, to efficiently apply analysis of equipment maintenance to improving the capability to determining the equipment root cause analysis and corrections. (See Rossi at Col. 10 Ln. 9-45; Col. 31 and 32).
Claim 45 recites limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 28. Regarding a system, comprising:
a repairing system (
Rossi: Col. 20 Ln. 20-40, Repairing & replacing action time is the time that takes to repair or replace a malfunctioning asset's system, subsystem or component. );
generate an action associated with the bad actor component, wherein the action comprises an instruction for the repairing system to repair the equipment (
Rossi: Col. 30 Ln. 13-20, To facilitate the analysis process and to direct less experienced users, computer 30 can include graphical display 32 instructions. The user can follow the instructions
Rossi: Col. 20 Ln. 13-20, Troubleshooting time is the time that takes to find the source of the breakdown. This may involve questioning the operator about the failure mode (how did the asset fail to perform or symptoms the operator may had noticed before the breakdown). May also require testing electrical, mechanical, hydraulic or other components using testing instruments, reviewing blueprints, SOP and OEM manuals.
Rossi: Col. 24 Ln. 52-58, Searching for a replacement/repairing part as soon as an alarm trips ensures its immediate procurement avoiding logistic losses resulting from searching, locating and testing the part when the line is down. This is accomplished by flagging a CMMS or printing a part searching request when a technology trips and alarm and this alarm is further confirmed).
Rossi describes determining the repair actions needed and providing instructions to execute the repairs.
Claims 46 and 47 recite limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claims 31 and 33.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 04/06/2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 6-11 Applicant argues with respect to claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea
In response to the 35 USC § 101 claim rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Using the two-part analysis, the Office has determined there are no elements, in the claim sufficient enough to ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As recited, the claims are directed towards:
receiving, via a tracking controller, a signal associated with equipment performance from a sensor;
determining, via the tracking controller, that an unscheduled shopping event associated with the equipment has occurred based on the received signal;
comparing, via the tracking controller, a cumulative use of a part of the equipment during a first period of time associated with the unscheduled shopping event to a determined cumulative use of a plurality of comparable parts used by a plurality of comparable equipment during a second period of time of comparable length to the first period of time;
determining, via the tracking controller, a usage metric associated with the cumulative use of the part of the equipment based on the comparison;
determining, via the tracking controller, that the part of the equipment is a bad actor component based on the usage metric and a predefined threshold;
generating, via the tracking controller, an action for autonomous remediation of the bad actor component.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions.
Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations regarding scheduling of maintenance repair, which constitutes methods related to fundamental economic principles or practices, as well as, commercial or legal interactions relating behaviors and business relations, which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The evaluating performance of equipment to provide shop personnel with data on the equipment is comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology.
Regarding, the steps at pg. 8-11 that Applicant points to as significantly more and practical application are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the steps of:
“The claims recite an autonomous method and system that involve the following functions: 1)receiving sensor-derived equipment performance signals; 2) detecting an unscheduled equipment event; 3) performing comparative analysis of cumulative component usage across a population of comparable equipment; 4) identifying a "bad actor component" based on that comparative analysis; and 5) generating a corresponding action tied to the identified component. These limitations work together to improve how an equipment-monitoring system detects abnormal component behavior and responds to it.”
and arguments at pg. 8 seems to describe a “particular way” of managing and scheduling of maintenance repair. The Applicant is basically relying on the sensor equipment as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application but those sensor equipment aren't really utilized in any particular manner. Additionally, the Applicant argument of “The claims here do exactly that: they improve equipment-monitoring technology by enabling fleet-level, comparative detection of anomalous component behavior triggered by unscheduled events, which is not achievable through conventional threshold-based or single-asset maintenance systems.”, seem to be addressing something that is not explained in the specs or claims of how and when the improving of equipment-monitoring technology is executed, at this point it’s just an aspirational statement. Similarly at pg. 9 “because they recite a concrete technological solution that improves how equipment is monitored and remediated”; “Claims 31 and 32 further anchor the method in real-world technological remediation by requiring physical replacement of the bad actor component or repair of the equipment itself, which the Memo recognizes as strong evidence of a practical application and technological improvement rather than an abstract idea applied on a computer. Claim 33 similarly recites a directed change to a movement schedule of the equipment, which is a system-level operational control action that alters how the machine operates, not the organization of human activity.”. As these arguments are admitting that the claims are directed to monitoring equipment, recognizing breakdowns, and repairs and placements, but never explain how the repairs or replacements are executed. Monitoring and having a scheduling is actually not improving the equipment-monitoring technology, more than merely computer-aided evaluation, judgement and observation, which can be concerned a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as recited, described or set forth above, per MPEP 2106.04(a) ¶3, 3), and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C.
Regarding at pg. 10 argument “the claims recite a non-conventional, ordered combination of technical operations that goes well beyond generic data collection, analysis, or maintenance management. In particular, the claims require detecting an unscheduled shop event, determining a cumulative usage metric of a component during a defined segment of such unscheduled events, comparing that metric relative to corresponding components of other equipment, identifying a bad actor component based on that comparison, and generating a component-specific action in response. This comparative, event-segmented analysis across multiple pieces of equipment is not a routine or conventional approach to maintenance, nor is it a basic automation of known practices. Rather, it represents a specialized diagnostic technique for identifying anomalous component behavior that would not be detectable using traditional per-asset thresholds or scheduled maintenance logic.” The Examiner, respectfully disagrees and wants to point out that claims do not show or break down any technical or at less structural proof on how this is actually executed, at this point it’s just an aspirational statement, hence meaning the claims could be performed manually be the human resources, i.e. operators or personnel listed in the Applicant’s spec. Therefore, making it more prevalent for the Examiner to direct the Applicant to Leapfrog Enters.
Regarding, “automated, machine-centric operations performed by a tracking controller.”
When determining whether a computer-implemented functional claim would have been obvious, examiners should note that broadly claiming an automated means to replace a manual function to accomplish the same result does not distinguish over the prior art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Accommodating a prior art mechanical device that accomplishes [a desired] goal to modern electronics would have been reasonably obvious to one of ordinary skill in designing children’s learning devices. Applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years.”); In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958); see also MPEP § 2144.04. Furthermore, implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); see also MPEP § 2143, Exemplary Rationales D and F. Likewise, it has been found to be obvious to adapt an existing process to incorporate Internet and Web browser technologies for communicating and displaying information because these technologies had become commonplace for those functions. Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1326-27, 87 USPQ2d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Additionally, the Examiner did consider “the Memo” and all examination falls in line with the memo. Thus, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which a ”improving how equipment is monitored” will fall under. The 2019 PEG which states:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection at pg. 11 and 12, the Applicant argues “Schlatre does not disclose, teach, or suggest detecting unscheduled shop events and performing a comparative analysis of cumulative part usage across multiple pieces of equipment.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree. Schlatre: Col. 2, Ln. 10-35; Col. 4 Ln. 30-37 describes analyzing parts when producing maintenance reports, which includes maintenance task and repairs that consist of comparing usage parts. The comparing of usage parts is for analyzing and executing repairs for equipment failures. As the Examiner is interpreting unscheduled shopping events as failures and in view of Applicant’s specification at 0013. Then, Schlatre: Col. 7 Ln. 24-42, describes comparing parts (multiple pieces of equipment) and parts usage data, as well as, recognizing the detection and repairing common problems.
Additionally, Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. detecting unscheduled shop events and performing a comparative analysis of cumulative part usage across multiple pieces of equipment) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
At pg. 12, the Applicant argues “Schlatre does not disclose segmenting unscheduled maintenance events, does not determine usage metrics tied to such segments, and does not compare those metrics relative to other equipment in order to identify a bad actor component.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree. Schlatre: Col. 2, Ln. 10-35; Col. 4 Ln. 30-37 describes analyzing parts when producing maintenance reports, which includes maintenance task and repairs that consist of comparing usage parts. The comparing of usage parts is for analyzing and executing repairs for equipment failures. As the Examiner is interpreting unscheduled shopping events as failures and in view of Applicant’s specification at 0013. Then, Schlatre: Col. 7 Ln. 24-42, describes comparing parts and parts usage data, as well as, recognizing the detection and repairing common problems. Then Rossi describes determining breakdowns and the cause of the breakdown which includes bad actors. Specifically Rossi: Col. 20 Ln. 13-20, teaches troubleshooting and the analyzing of components (segments). Lastly, Rossi describes techniques for determining breakdowns and the cause of the breakdown which includes metrics for maintenance that consist of determining the total number of breakdowns.
Additionally, Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. Schlatre does not disclose segmenting unscheduled maintenance events, does not determine usage metrics tied to such segments, and does not compare those metrics relative to other equipment in order to identify a bad actor component.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
At pg. 12, the Applicant argues “Rossi does not disclose detecting unscheduled shop events at the equipment level, does not teach computing cumulative usage metrics tied to such events, and does not perform comparative analysis across peer equipment to identify anomalous components..”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree. Schlatre: Col. 2, Ln. 10-35; Col. 4 Ln. 30-37 describes analyzing parts when producing maintenance reports, which includes maintenance task and repairs that consist of comparing usage parts. The comparing of usage parts is for analyzing and executing repairs for equipment failures. As the Examiner is interpreting unscheduled shopping events as failures and in view of Applicant’s specification at 0013. Then, Schlatre: Col. 7 Ln. 24-42, describes comparing parts and parts usage data, as well as, recognizing the detection and repairing common problems (which would include peer equipment). Then Rossi describes determining breakdowns and the cause of the breakdown which includes bad actors. Specifically Rossi: Col. 20 Ln. 13-20, teaches troubleshooting and the analyzing of broken components. Lastly, Rossi describes techniques for determining breakdowns and the cause of the breakdown which includes metrics for maintenance that consist of determining the total number of breakdowns.
Additionally, Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. Rossi does not disclose detecting unscheduled shop events at the equipment level, does not teach computing cumulative usage metrics tied to such events, and does not perform comparative analysis across peer equipment to identify anomalous components.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
At pg. 12, the Applicant argues “neither Schlatre nor Rossi teaches or suggests identifying a "bad actor component" based on relative behavior across equipment”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree. Rossi describes determining breakdowns and the cause of the breakdown which includes bad actors. Specifically Rossi: Col. 20 Ln. 13-20, teaches troubleshooting and the analyzing of broken components across equipment.
Additionally, Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. neither Schlatre nor Rossi teaches or suggests identifying a "bad actor component" based on relative behavior across equipment) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
At pg. 12 and 13, the Applicant argues “Neither Schlatre nor Rossi discloses or suggests a repairing system that autonomously implements repair or replacement actions in response to a diagnostic determination.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree. Schlatre describes independently automation process for determining and providing task for equipment that needs maintenance. See Schlatre: Col. 6 Ln. 10-30 and Schlatre: Col. 4 Ln. 26-42
Additionally, Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. Neither Schlatre nor Rossi discloses or suggests a repairing system that autonomously implements repair or replacement actions in response to a diagnostic determination) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bechhoefer et al., U.S. Pub. 20170023438, (discussing the operation history utilization for determining conditional maintenance).
Hill et al., International Pub. WO2004013773A1, (discussing the designing of a plant to the relevance of equipment maintenance).
Sakib et al., Challenges And Opportunities Of Condition-Based Predictive Maintenance: A Review, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212827118312344 Procedia CIRP 78 (2018) 267–272; 6th CIRP Global Web Conference “Envisaging the future manufacturing, design, technologies, and systems in innovation era” (discussing the managing of maintenance which includes predictive and conditional-based maintenance).
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 UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/UCHE BYRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights