DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-20 recites at least one step or instruction for communicating a wireless communication to a second railway maintenance assembly that is separate from the first railway maintenance assembly, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-20 recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 8, and 14 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 8, and 14), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a component monitor are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1, 8, and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 8, and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a component monitor as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 8, and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 8, and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a mesh network.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term component monitor is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the component monitor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the systems and methods of Claims 1-20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1-20 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, 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. Thus, Claims 1-20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coomer US 2005/0067381 in view of Boggio US 2019/0130669 and Fox US 2014/0111321.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 14, Coomer discloses a system (see Abstract and paragraphs [0073], [0087], [0090], and [0091].
Boggio discloses a component monitor adapted to be disposed at a first railway maintenance assembly, the component monitor configured to perform operations comprising: monitoring one or more conditions of at least a portion of the first railway maintenance assembly (see Abstract, FIG. 1 and paragraphs [0030], [0031], [0048], and [0078]-[0081]); based at least in part on the monitoring, storing monitoring data corresponding to operations of the first railway maintenance assembly (see Abstract, FIG. 1 and paragraphs [0030], [0031], [0048], and [0078]-[0081]); and generating reporting data based at least in part on the stored monitoring data. (see Abstract, FIG. 1 and paragraphs [0032]-[0035])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Coomer with the teachings of Boggio, for the advantageous benefit of detecting anomalies in the robotic component and initiating preventative maintenance on the robotic component before further damages occur in relation to the detected anomalous behavior.
Fox discloses communicating a wireless communication to a second railway maintenance assembly that is separate from the first railway maintenance assembly, the wireless communication comprising the reporting data. See FIG. 6 and paragraphs [0029]-[0031] and [0039]-[0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Fox in the system of Coomer
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 15, Fox discloses wherein the communicating the wireless communication to the second railway maintenance assembly comprises communicating the wireless communication to a second component monitor at the second railway maintenance assembly. See FIG. 6 and paragraphs [0029]-[0031] and [0039]-[0055].
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 16, Fox discloses the operations further comprising: receiving a second wireless communication from a third railway maintenance assembly; and sending a third wireless communication to the second railway maintenance assembly, wherein the third wireless communication corresponds to the second wireless communication. See FIG. 6 and paragraphs [0029]-[0031] and [0039]-[0055].
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, Fox discloses wherein the sending the third wireless communication corresponds to relaying the second wireless communication from the third railway maintenance assembly to second railway maintenance assembly. See FIG. 6 and paragraphs [0029]-[0031] and [0039]-[0055].
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Fox discloses wherein: the component monitor is configured to facilitate the first railway maintenance assembly being communicatively interconnected with one or more other railway maintenance assemblies of a plurality of railway maintenance assemblies (see paragraphs [0012]-[0017]); each of the plurality of railway maintenance assemblies has a respective component monitor of a plurality of component monitors; the plurality of component monitors facilitate a local wireless network for the plurality of railway maintenance assemblies; and the plurality of railway maintenance assemblies comprises the first railway maintenance assembly and the second railway maintenance assembly. See FIG. 6 and paragraphs [0029]-[0031] and [0039]-[0055].
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Fox discloses wherein the local wireless network corresponds to a mesh network. See paragraphs [0019]-[0022].
Claims 7, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coomer, Boggio, Le-Corre, and Fox, as applied above, in view of Merg et al US 10,068,207.
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 20, Merg et al discloses wherein the plurality of railway maintenance assemblies configured with the component monitors are configured to communicate according to a hierarchy. See col. 12, ll. 14-29 and col. 32, ll. 47-61.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Merg et al in the system of Coomer to prioritize and optimize repairs for safety purposes and for efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J DALLO whose telephone number is (313)446-4844. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-7pm ET M-Th.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOSEPH J DALLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights