DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the response to the amendment filed on 06/29/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 1-3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: In a test for patent subject matter eligibility, claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are found to be in accordance with Step 1 (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility), as they are related to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 recite a system. When assessed under Step 2A, Prong I, they are found to be directed towards an abstract idea. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Step 2A, Prong I: Under Step 2A, Prong I, claims 1 and 7 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as they all recite a judicial exception. Claims 1 and 7 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea including “receive operation information of the plurality of industrial machines; receive inventory information regarding inventory and procurement of replacement components for the components of the plurality of industrial machines; predict a failure-predicted component, which is predicted to fail among components of the plurality of industrial machines, and a predicted failure time of the failure-predicted component based on the received operation information; determine and transmit a maintenance priority order of the failure-predicted component of the plurality of industrial machines based on the predicted failure time of the failure-predicted component and the received inventory information of the replacement components, wherein the inventory information includes an inventory status including a quantity of inventory of each of the replacement components and a procurement status including a procurement lead time of each of the replacement components, and wherein, when there is no inventory of a replacement component and the procurement lead time of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value, the processor is configured to lower the maintenance priority order of the failure- predicted component”. These further limitations are not seen as any more than the judicial exception. Claims 1 and 7 recite additional limitations including “from the plurality of industrial machines; from an inventory management device; wherein the processor is configured to; and via the communication interface”. Managing maintenance of a plurality of industrial machines by transmitting a maintenance priority order based on a predicted failure time is considered to be an abstract idea, specifically, certain methods of organizing human activity; such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because the claims are directed to managing maintenance of industrial machines by receiving data and determining data. Managing maintenance of a plurality of industrial machines by transmitting a maintenance priority order based on a predicted failure time is also considered to be an abstract idea, specifically, mental processes; such as concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion because the claims comprise steps such as receiving data (i.e. to operation information and inventory information of industrial machines), predicting data (i.e. which component of the industrial machine will fail and when), and determining and transmitting data (i.e. maintenance priority order). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong I, claims 1 and 7 are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong II: Step 2A, Prong II is to determine whether any claim recites any additional element that integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application. Claims 1 and 7 recite additional limitations including “from the plurality of industrial machines; from an inventory management device; wherein the processor is configured to; and via the communication interface”. These additional limitations are not found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, alone, and in combination, these additional elements are seen as using a computer or tool to perform an abstract idea, adding insignificant-extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (i.e. industrial machines/management device/processor/communication interface). They do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e. machines/devices/processors/interfaces, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts decided that although the additional elements did limit the use of the abstract idea, the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and this fails to add an inventive concept to the claims (See Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC,). Under Step 2A, Prong II, these claims remain directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 7 recite additional limitations including “from the plurality of industrial machines; from an inventory management device; wherein the processor is configured to; and via the communication interface”. These additional limitations are not found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Analysis in Step 2A Prong II). Independent claims 1 and 7 do not include additional elements or a combination of elements that result in the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements listed amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the applicant’s specifications describe generic computer-based elements, ¶ [0019], for implementing the CPU, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Furthermore, there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field, and there is no transformation of subject matter into a different state. Under Step 2B in a test for patent subject matter eligibility, these claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 3, and 5 further recite the system of claim 1. Dependent claims 2, 3, and 5 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea:
Under Step 2A, Prong I, these additional claims only further narrow the abstract idea set forth in claims 1 and 7. For example, claims 2, 3, and 5 describe the limitations for managing maintenance of a plurality of industrial machines by transmitting a maintenance priority order based on a predicted failure time – which is only further narrowing the scope of the abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Under Step 2A, Prong II, for dependent claims 2, 3, and 5, there are no additional elements introduced. Thus, they do not present integration into a practical application, or amount to significantly more.
Under Step 2B, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field, and there is no transformation of subject matter into a different state. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional claims do not provide any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Under Step 2B, these claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are allowable over the prior art.
Independent claims 1 and 7 recite the claim feature – “determine and transmit, via the communication interface, a maintenance priority order of the failure-predicted component of the plurality of industrial machines based on the predicted failure time of the failure-predicted component and the received inventory information of the replacement components, wherein the inventory information includes an inventory status including a quantity of inventory of each of the replacement components and a procurement status including a procurement lead time of each of the replacement components, and wherein, when there is no inventory of a replacement component and the procurement lead time of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value, the processor is configured to lower the maintenance priority order of the failure-predicted component.”
The Igarashi reference discloses – “determine and transmit, via the communication interface, a maintenance priority order of the failure-predicted component of the plurality of industrial machines based on the predicted failure time of the failure-predicted component and the received inventory information of the replacement components” (See Col. 7 Lines 7-16, Cols. 15-16 Lines 61-23, and Col. 4 Lines 33-51). However, does not disclosing lowering/raising the priority or timing of the order.
The Horihata reference discloses – “wherein, when there is no inventory of a replacement component OR the procurement lead time of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value, the processor is configured to lower the maintenance priority order of the failure-predicted component” (See ¶ [0088], ¶ [0140], ¶ [0117], and ¶ [0181]). However, does not disclose that the lowering of the maintenance priority order is based on no inventory of a replacement component AND the procurement lead time of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value. Examiner notes that the Horihata reference is directed to the repair locations and procurement lead times associated with repair locations instead of the claimed replacement component.
Examiner conducted a search within the allotted time and found U.S. Patent 10,621,545 to Takigawa to be pertinent to the claim amendments. The Takigawa reference discloses “wherein, when there is no inventory of a replacement component and the procurement lead time of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value, the processor is configured to [[lower]] the maintenance priority order of the failure-predicted component” (See Col. 13 Lines 23-55 and Col. 14 Lines 9-42). However, does not disclose lowering or ranking the maintenance priority order based on the conditions being met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 4 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 06/29/2026, with respect to the objection of claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7 for informalities have been considered and are persuasive. The Applicant states that “Applicant amends independent claim 1 to recite "when there is no inventory of a replacement component[[,] and the procurement lead time of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value,
Applicant’s arguments see pages 4-5 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 06/29/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7 have been considered but are not persuasive:
The Applicant asserts “Applicant respectfully contends that amended claim 1 sufficiently recites features that demonstrate an improvement in a technical field. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). In particular, Applicant notes that, as described, for example, in paragraphs [0002] and [0004] of the specification as filed, maintenance of industrial machines is an important task in the field where the industrial machines are used, i.e., in a technical field.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not improve how an industrial machine operates, does not modify machine hardware or control logic, and does not change how the machines themselves function — it only outputs a ranking/schedule for human maintenance crews to act on. That is indistinguishable in kind from Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where collecting, analyzing, and outputting information about a technical system (the power grid) was held abstract notwithstanding the technical subject matter being monitored, because the claims themselves did not improve the underlying technology — only the information delivered about it.
The Applicant also asserts “Further, as described, for example, in paragraph [0027] of the specification as filed, the amended independent claim provides a technical benefit or improvement to manage the maintenance of industrial machines more effectively and efficiently than the prior art. Additionally, Applicant notes that amended claim 1 recites "when there is no inventory of a replacement component and the procurement lead time of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value, the processor is configured to lower the maintenance priority order of the failure-predicted component." As specifically described in paragraph [0024] of the specification as filed, amended claim 1 provides an additional technical improvement, namely, "even if there is no inventory of a replacement component, if the lead time for procurement of the replacement component is relatively short, the inventory of the replacement component can be secured before maintenance" and "if the lead time for procurement of a replacement component is relatively long, the inventory of the replacement component may not be secured until maintenance, and the date of maintenance needs to be adjusted." Hence, Applicant respectfully contends that the amended independent claim as a whole sufficiently integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claim recites limitations that demonstrate improvements to the industrial machinery maintenance field.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. ““More effective and efficient” management of maintenance scheduling is a classic characterization of an improved business method or organizational process — it is an improvement to the abstract idea itself (better resource allocation, better scheduling), not an improvement to computer functionality, machine functionality, or any other recognized technology. This is precisely the distinction the Federal Circuit drew in SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “a claimed advance that is ‘abstract’ if considered on its own… is no less abstract for being ‘new’” — i.e., doing the abstract task (here, maintenance prioritization) faster, better, or with fewer wasted resources than the prior art does not convert it into a technical improvement; it only makes it a better abstract idea. Similarly, in Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), an improvement limited to the efficiency of the underlying (abstract) process, without a corresponding improvement to a computer’s operation, was held ineligible. Nothing in ¶[0027] identifies how a computer, sensor, communication protocol, or database structure operates any differently or more efficiently as a result of the claim — the efficiency gain described is entirely in the domain of physical maintenance logistics (fewer delayed repairs, better-timed parts orders), which is an operational/business efficiency, not a technological one.
Examiner recommends the Applicant to amend the “receive operation information” to be tied to a physical sensor data from industrial machines that is more concrete than pure financial/informational data and/or to further tie the priority determination to some concrete machine-control action (e.g., automatically halting or throttling machine operation, not just outputting a ranking to a human). Therefore, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained above with an updated analysis.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 5-8 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 06/29/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7 over Igarashi in view of Horihata have been considered and are persuasive. The Applicant asserts “Horihata appears to describe that the "influence level" is a parameter that takes into account not only the repair time but also the estimated arrival time for the vehicle 2 to arrive at the destination via the repair place. However, Applicant respectfully contends that the repair place for the estimated arrival time is different from the destination for the desired arrival time and is irrelevant to the features recited in the claims. Further, the alleged priority order determined based on the "influence level" in Horihata is a concept that includes the travel distance and travel time to the repair place other than the destination. Also, the alleged priority order of Horihata is the priority order of "the repair place candidate for the vehicle" and is distinct from the priority order of "the replacement component" recited in the claims. Hence, Applicant respectfully contends that the Office's assertion of "Horihata's processor is configured to lower the maintenance priority order of the failure-predicted component" is improper. The Office Action also asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Horihata's processor to Igarashi's management device for managing maintenance of a plurality of industrial machines. However, Applicant respectfully contends that it would be unclear how Horihata's processor considers "the destination," "the repair place," the desired arrival time," "the estimated arrival time," "the influence level," and "the priority of the repair place candidate for the vehicle" when Horihata's processor is added to Igarashi's management device.” The Examiner agrees and therefore, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following reference are cited to further show the state of the art:
U.S. Patent 12,276,976 to Igarashi for disclosing a work machine maintenance management system capable of predicting replacement timing of a component of a work machine early. The work machine maintenance management system of this disclosure includes a maintenance management DB server 110 that accumulates maintenance management information of a plurality of work machines and a maintenance management control device 120 that predicts replacement timing of each component of each of the work machines based on the maintenance management information. The maintenance management information includes an actual durable period from start of use to replacement each component of each work machine. The maintenance management control device 120 includes a replacement-factor determining section 121, a service life model creator 122, a failure model creator 123, and a replacement time predictor 126. The replacement-factor determining section 121 determines whether a replacement factor of each component is a service life factor or a failure factor based on an actual durable period of each component of the plurality of work machines. The service life model creator 122 creates a service life model of the component whose replacement factor is determined to be the service life factor by the replacement-factor determining section 121. The failure model creator 123 creates a failure model of the component whose replacement factor is determined to be the failure factor by the replacement-factor determining section 121. The replacement time predictor 126 predicts the replacement timing of each component of each work machine based on the service life model and the failure model.
U.S. Publication 2024/0410713 to Horihata for disclosing a repair place transmission device is configured to: acquire a movement schedule for moving a user to a destination using a vehicle; acquire a current location of the vehicle; an abnormality determination unit configured to determine whether or not an abnormality is present in the vehicle; extract, from the movement schedule, a travel route from the current location to the destination and a plurality of destinations located on the travel route; extract, for each of the destinations, a repair place for repairing the vehicle located within a predetermined range from the destination as the repair place corresponding to the destination when the abnormality is determined to be present in the vehicle; compute, for each of the repair places, an influence level indicating a level of influence on the movement schedule by repairing the vehicle in the repair place; and transmit a control signal for outputting repair place data on the repair place having a lower influence level in priority over repair place data on the repair place having a higher influence level.
U.S. Patent 10,621,545 to Takigawa for disclosing An inventory management system includes a plurality of apparatuses, an information management device connected to the apparatuses, and an information processor. The information processor calculates the sum of cumulative failure rates that is the sum value of the cumulative failure rates of all of designated components having the same specifications used in the apparatuses at a certain point in time, in consideration of an acceleration depending on a driving condition with respect to a standard cumulative failure rate of each type of the designated components having the same specifications used in the apparatuses under a standard driving condition, and calculates the appropriate inventory quantity of the designated components based on the calculated sum of the cumulative failure rates.
U.S. Publication 2004/0044598 to Hosaka for disclosing a centralized management system for managing maintenance parts of machines at multiple plants includes: a warehouse facility for providing a concentrated storage of the maintenance parts for multiple types of the machines at multiple plants; a necessary parts management device for managing whether the maintenance parts are required for the machine; and a parts shipment management device for determining the maintenance parts to be shipped from the warehouse facility based on management information in the necessary parts management device. The present invention provides a system for managing maintenance parts that allows management costs to be restricted while allowing changes in the status of machines at plants to be handled in a flexible manner.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 Azam Ansari, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7047. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8 AM and 4:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at (571) 270-3948.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephonic interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/AZAM A ANSARI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights