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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 is written as being a dependent of itself. In the interest of compact prosecution the claim will be examined as if it depended from Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Method claims 17 and 18 recite that they are dependent from system claim 11. In the interest of compact prosecution they will be examined as if they depended from Claim 12. Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1 and product Claim 19. Claim 12 recites the limitations of receiving, by a system comprising a processor, industrial asset data collected by a mobile industrial robot within an industrial facility, wherein the industrial asset data comprises operational and status information for the industrial assets; and in response to determining, based on analysis of the industrial asset data, that a subset of the industrial asset data satisfies a condition indicative of a current or predicted risk to an industrial asset of the industrial assets: determining, by the system, one or more maintenance tasks predicted to mitigate the current or predicted risk; and generating a work order prescribing the one or more maintenance tasks.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Generating a work order for one or more maintenance tasks recites managing personal behavior (following rules or instructions). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a managing personal behavior (following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The memory and processor in Claim 1, system comprising a processor, a mobile industrial robot in Claim 12, and a mobile industrial robot in Claim 19 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The device interface component, analysis component, and work order generation component in Claim 1 and determining and generating steps of Claims 12 and 19 appears to be just software. Claims 1 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 memory and processor in Claim 1, system comprising a processor, a mobile industrial robot in Claim 12, and a mobile industrial robot in Claim 19 and the device interface component, analysis component, and work order generation component in Claim 1 and determining and generating steps of Claims 12 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, 12, and 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. [0038, 0040, 0112-0114] 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, 12, and 19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 12, and 19 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2, 13, and 20 further define the first and second industrial robots and the sending of instructions without adding significantly more; Claims 3 and 14 detail the maintenance tasks; Claims 4, 5, 15, and 16 further include that the analysis uses AI, performing the judicial exception steps using AI merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims (ee MPEP 2105(h)); Claims 6-10 and 17 further detail how the analysis is configured without adding significantly more; Claims 11 and 18 further define how the industrial asset data is collected 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 2-11, 13-18, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-12, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. 11,017,321 (Mishra et al. ‘321).
Re Claim 1: Mishra et al. ‘321 disclose a system, comprising: a memory that stores executable components and work order data defining closed work orders for maintenance tasks that have been completed; and a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components, the executable components comprising: a device interface component configured to receive industrial asset data collected by a mobile industrial robot within an industrial facility, wherein the industrial asset data comprises operational and status information for the industrial assets (column 7, line 40- column 8, line 51); an analysis component configured to, in response to a determination, based on analysis of the industrial asset data, that a subset of the industrial asset data satisfies a condition indicative of a current or predicted risk to an industrial asset of the industrial assets, formulate one or more maintenance tasks predicted to mitigate the current or predicted risk; (column 7, line 40 – column 8, line 19; column 9, line 39 – column 10, line 2) and a work order generation component configured to, in response to the determination by the analysis component that the subset of the industrial data satisfies the condition, generate a work order prescribing the one or more maintenance tasks (column 20, line 27 – column 21, line 11).
Re Claim 2: Mishra et al. ‘321 disclose a system substantially as claimed in supra including that the mobile industrial robot is a first mobile industrial robot, the analysis component is further configured to: determine, based on capability data describing functional capabilities of a second mobile industrial robot, whether the second mobile industrial robot is capable of performing a maintenance task of the one or more maintenance tasks, and in response to a determination that the second mobile industrial robot is capable of performing the maintenance task, formulate robot instructions that program the second mobile industrial robot to perform the maintenance task, and the device interface component is further configured to send the robot instructions to the second mobile industrial robot (.
Re Claim 3: Mishra et al. ‘321 disclose a system substantially as claimed in supra including that the maintenance task is at least one of retrieval of a tool required to perform at least one of the one or more maintenance tasks, measurement of a status or performance metric of the industrial asset, performance of a tooling action, operation of a panel control, movement of a component part or material, or verification of a condition of the industrial asset (column 20, line 27 – column 21, line 11).
Re Claim 4: Mishra et al. ‘321 disclose a system substantially as claimed in supra including that the analysis component is configured to, as part of the analysis, generate a prompt, directed to a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model, designed to obtain a response from the generative AI model that is used by the analysis component to determine whether the subset of the industrial asset data satisfies the condition (abstract; column 6, line 66 – column 7, line 39).
Re Claim 5: Mishra et al. ‘321 disclose a system substantially as claimed in supra including that the response from the generative AI model is a first response, and the analysis component is further configured to formulate the one or more maintenance tasks based on second responses prompted from the generative AI model (abstract; column 6, line 66 – column 7, line 39).
Re Claim 6: Mishra et al. ‘321 disclose a system substantially as claimed in supra including that the analysis component is further configured to determine whether the subset of the industrial asset data satisfies the condition based on a model trained with training data comprising at least one of technical specification data for the industrial assets, information from past work orders that were generated for the industrial assets, historical operational or status data for the industrial assets, information about technicians employed by the plant facility, or financial data for the plant facility (column 3, lines 10-59).
Re Claim 7: Mishra et al. ‘321 disclose a system substantially as claimed in supra including that the analysis component is further configured to formulate the one or more maintenance tasks based on content of a plant model that defines the industrial assets in service within the plant facility, functional relationships between the industrial assets, and geographical relationships between the industrial assets (column 2, line 26 – column 3, line 9).
Re Claim 10: Mishra et al. ‘321 disclose a system substantially as claimed in supra including further comprising a user interface configured to render content of the work order generated by the work order generation component, wherein the content comprises at least one of a description of the current or predicted risk, descriptions of the one or more maintenance tasks, identities of one or more technicians assigned to the work order, a status of the work order, a priority of the work order, or an identity of the industrial asset (column 3, lines 10-59).
Re Claim 11: Mishra et al. ‘321 disclose a system substantially as claimed in supra including that the mobile industrial robot is configured to collect the industrial asset data using at least one of a near-field communication link that reads data from an industrial device or meter, a three-dimensional camera, a heat sensor, a presence sensor, or a motion amplification sensor (column 9, line 39 – column 10, line 2).
Re Claims 12 & 14-18: Method claims 12 and 14-18 are substantially similar to previously rejected system claims 1, 3-6, and 11, respectively, and are therefore considered to be rejected here using the same art and rationale.
Re Claim 19: Computer-readable medium claim 19 is substantially similar to previously rejected system claim 1 and is therefore considered to be rejected here using the same art and rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References B-F have been included on PTO-892 as demonstrating the state of the art at the time of filing.
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
9/30/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
