DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Examiner’s Comment
This Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 03/02/2026 with Amended Claims and Applicant's Remarks filed on 03/02/2026.
Applicant has amended claim 1 and canceled claim 4 according to Amendments filed on 03/02/2026. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/30/2026 has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 1 recites “wherein, when there is no inventory of a replacement component, the procurement lead time of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value, the inventory of the replacement component is not secured until maintenance, and a date of the maintenance needs to be adjusted, the processor is configured to lower the maintenance priority order of the failure- predicted component” which is interpreted as a cause and effect relationship such as when “A” occurs, then “B” occurs or maintenance priority is lowered. The Applicant has amended the claims to further clarify “A” to include factors such as “the inventory of the replacement component is not secured until maintenance, and a date of the maintenance needs to be adjusted”. However, these are not factors that trigger “B” or lowers maintenance priority. For example, according to ¶ [0024] of the Applicant’s originally filed specification; “Here, 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. On the other hand, 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. Therefore, when there is no inventory of a replacement component and the lead time for procurement of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value, the maintenance priority order determination unit 15 lowers the maintenance priority order of the failure-predicted component.” It is clear from the Applicant’s disclosure, that there are two different cause and effect relationships; when “A” occurs or if there is no inventory and the procurement lead time is too long, then “B” occurs or inventory of replacement component is not secured until maintenance and date of maintenance is adjusted. The other cause and effect relationship; is when “A” occurs or if there is no inventory and the procurement lead time is too long, then “B” occurs or maintenance priority is lowered. It appears the Applicant is attempting to claim that “A” conditions include “when there is no inventory of a replacement component, the procurement lead time of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value, the inventory of the replacement component is not secured until maintenance, and a date of the maintenance needs to be adjusted” then “B” occurs or maintenance priority is lowered which would be incorrect. The Applicant has disclosure for if “A” occurs or “if the lead time for procurement of a replacement component is relatively long” then “B”occurs “the inventory of the replacement component may not be secured until maintenance, and the date of maintenance needs to be adjusted”. The Applicant also has disclosure of if “A” occurs or if “no inventory of a replacement component and the lead time for procurement of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value” then “B” occurs or “the maintenance priority order determination unit 15 lowers the maintenance priority order of the failure-predicted component”. 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 1-3, 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, the procurement lead time of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value, the inventory of the replacement component is not secured until maintenance, and a date of the maintenance needs to be adjusted, 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 being 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 being 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 being 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 12,276,976 to Igarashi in view of U.S. Publication 2024/0410713 to Horihata.
With respect to Claim 1:
Igarashi teaches:
A maintenance management device for industrial machines, for managing maintenance of a plurality of industrial machines, the maintenance management device comprising a communication interface and a processor, wherein the communication interface being configured to (Igarashi: Cols. 3-4 Lines 64-51):
receive operation information of the plurality of industrial machines from the plurality of industrial machines (i.e. receiving operating information of the work machines) (Igarashi: Col. 4 Lines 11-18 “The controller 17 obtains operating information of the work machine 10 from, for example, sensors provided on respective portions of the work machine 10. The controller 17 transmits the operating information of the work machine 10 along with attribute information of the work machine 10 to the maintenance management DB server 110 via, for example, a communication device, the wireless communication line, and the wired communication line.”);
receive inventory information regarding inventory and procurement of replacement components for the components of the plurality of industrial machines from an inventory management device (i.e. acquiring inventory information and replacement component information for the work machines) (Igarashi: Col. 5 Lines 41-52 “Among the above-described maintenance management information, the component database 111 stores, for example, the lead time of each component of the work machine 10, the inventory quantity of each component of the work machine 10, and the suppliable number of each component in its manufacturing period of the work machine 10. Here, the lead time is, for example, a necessary period from order to delivery of each component of the work machine 10 set for each region. The suppliable number in the manufacturing period of each component represents a supply capacity of component of the component supplier 50 in the manufacturing period.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 6 Lines 36-47 “Among the above-described maintenance management information, the replacement information database 116 stores, for example, the actual durable period from start of use to replacement of each component of each of the work machines 10. More specifically, for example, a replacement date of each component of each of the work machines 10 is transmitted from the controller 17 or the maintenance terminal 80 of each of the work machines 10 to the maintenance management DB server 110. The maintenance management DB server 110 stores the received replacement date of each component of each of the work machines 10 in the replacement information database 116.”); and
wherein the processor being configured to: 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 (i.e. failure model predicts failure of component of work machine and time of failure/replacement is needed) (Igarashi: Col. 10 Lines 5-21 “Next, the failure model creator 123 executes a process P302 that creates a failure model. In this process P302, the failure model creator 123 counts, for example, the number of components whose replacement factor is a failure factor in each group to calculate the total failure number for each of the components, and calculates the total operating time as a sum of the operating times of the work machines 10 in each group. Furthermore, the failure model creator 123 divides the total failure number by the total operating time to calculate an occurrence number of failures per unit time for each component in each group as a failure model, and terminate the process shown in FIG. 5. The failure model creator 123 may divide the total failure number by the total number of operating days as a sum of the numbers of operating days of the work machines 10 in each group to calculate an occurrence number of failures per day for each component in each group as a failure model.” Furthermore, as cited in Cols. 11-12 Lines 59-4 “Next, the replacement time predictor 126 executes a process P507 that predicts a replacement date due to failure. In this process P507, the replacement time predictor 126 refers to, for example, the machine database 112, and refers to the operation model created by the operation model creator 124 for each group of the work machines 10 created by the above-described failure model creator 123. Then, the operating time transition in future based on the operation model is input to the failure model created by the failure model creator 123, the replacement date due to failure for each component of each of the work machines 10 is calculated with each of the latest replacement date as the starting point.”); and
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 (i.e. determining and transmitting a replacement order for the component of the work machine that failed based on a predicted time the component will fail or need to be replaced and the received inventory information) (Igarashi: Col. 7 Lines 7-16 “The maintenance management control device 120 may further include a number-of-replacement counter 127 and an order timing predictor 128. The maintenance management control device 120 may further include an order-leveling unit 129. These respective units of the maintenance management control device 120 represent functions of the maintenance management control device 120 achieved by, for example, execution of programs stored in a storage device by a processing device.” Furthermore, as cited in Cols. 15-16 Lines 61-23 “Furthermore, the maintenance management control device 120 can predict the replacement timing for each component of each of the work machines 10 by considering the service life and the failure using the replacement time predictor 126, based on the created service life model and failure model. Accordingly, this embodiment provides the work machine maintenance management system 100 capable of predicting the replacement timing of the components of the work machine 10 early. In the maintenance management system 100 of the embodiment, the above-described maintenance management information accumulated in the maintenance management DB server 110 includes, for example, the lead time from order to delivery for each component of each of the work machines 10. The maintenance management control device 120 includes the number-of-replacement counter 127, which totalizes the numbers of replacements of each component based on the replacement timing of each component, and the order timing predictor 128, which predicts the order timing of the component based on the number of replacements of each component and the lead time of each component. This configuration allows the maintenance management system 100 of the embodiment to predict the order timing considering the lead time of each component and to order the component earlier for delivery. Accordingly, in the working sites that employ the work machine 10, this makes it possible to deliver the component before replacement of the component of the work machine 10, thus minimizing the shutdown period of the work machine 10.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 4 Lines 33-51 “The controller 17 is connected to, for example, a maintenance terminal 80 via the wireless communication line or the wired communication line and transmits the operating information of the work machine 10 to the maintenance terminal 80. The maintenance terminal 80 includes, for example, a mobile terminal, such as a smart phone, a tablet PC, a notebook PC, or the like and transmits the operating information obtained from the work machine 10 to the maintenance management DB server 110 via the wireless communication line or the wired communication line. The maintenance terminal 80 is used by a maintenance personnel in, for example, the distributor 40 and/or a service maintenance plant for the work machine 10. When the information communication between the controller 17 of the work machine 10 and the maintenance management DB server 110 via the wireless communication line is difficult, it is possible to transmit the operating information of the work machine 10 to the maintenance management DB server 110 via the maintenance terminal 80.”),
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 (i.e. inventory information includes quantity of inventory and lead time for replacement order) (Igarashi: Col. 5 Lines 41-56 “Among the above-described maintenance management information, the component database 111 stores, for example, the lead time of each component of the work machine 10, the inventory quantity of each component of the work machine 10, and the suppliable number of each component in its manufacturing period of the work machine 10. Here, the lead time is, for example, a necessary period from order to delivery of each component of the work machine 10 set for each region. The suppliable number in the manufacturing period of each component represents a supply capacity of component of the component supplier 50 in the manufacturing period. The component database 111 stores, for example, computation results of the number-of-replacement counter 127, the order timing predictor 128, and the order-leveling unit 129 of the maintenance management control device 120 described later.”).
Igarashi does not explicitly disclose wherein, when there is no inventory of a replacement component, the procurement lead time of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value, the inventory of the replacement component is not secured until maintenance, and a date of the maintenance needs to be adjusted, the processor is configured to lower the maintenance priority order of the failure-predicted component.
However, Horihata further discloses wherein, when there is no inventory of a replacement component, the procurement lead time of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value, the inventory of the replacement component is not secured until maintenance, and a date of the maintenance needs to be adjusted, the processor is configured to lower the maintenance priority order of the failure-predicted component (i.e. influence level is increased when there is no inventory for the replacement component or the lead time is longer for the replacement component, wherein increasing influence level decreases priority order for the replacement component and wherein a movable time or date of maintenance is adjusted/changed according to replacement component not being secured or replaced) (Horihata: ¶ [0088] “In addition, the influence level computation unit 70 computes a delay time for the desired arrival time on the basis of the estimated arrival time and the desired arrival time for each repair place, and computes the influence level of the repair place having a longer delay time to be higher than the influence level of the repair place having a shorter delay time. As a result, according to this embodiment, it is possible to display a repair place candidate while suppressing delay in the arrival time at the user's desired destination.” Furthermore, as cited in ¶ [0140] “In addition, the influence level computation unit 70 may compute the influence level of the repair place candidate having no stock to be higher. Note that the method described here is merely an exemplary method, and the invention is not limited thereto.” Furthermore, as cited in ¶ [0117] “When there are a plurality of destinations that serve as the reference for obtaining the priority, it may be derived by any method as long as the priority increases as the influence level decreases, such as a total sum of the influence levels of each place.” Furthermore, as cited in ¶ [0181] “In addition, according to this embodiment, when the user confirms the reservation of the repair place, and then, the movable distance or movable time for moving the vehicle becomes equal to or shorter than a predetermined distance or time due to an event other than a failure caused by a vehicle abnormality, the movement schedule is changed. When the movement schedule is changed, the changed travel route from the current location to the destination is extracted from the changed movement schedule, a plurality of repair places are extracted within a predetermined range from the changed travel route, and the influence level is computed for each repair place is. As a result, even when the movement schedule is changed due to an accidental event that narrows the vehicle movement range, it is possible to provide the user with information on the repair place while suppressing influence of the vehicle repair on the changed movement schedule.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to add Horihata’s processor is configured to lower the maintenance priority order of the failure-predicted component when there is no inventory of a replacement component, the procurement lead time of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value, the inventory of the replacement component is not secured until maintenance, and a date of the maintenance needs to be adjusted to Igarashi’s maintenance management device for managing maintenance of a plurality of industrial machines. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “provide a repair place transmission device and a repair place transmission method capable of providing information on a repair place while suppressing influence on a user's schedule by repairing the vehicle.” (Horihata: ¶ [0005]).
With respect to Claim 2:
Igarashi does not explicitly disclose the maintenance management device for industrial machines according to claim 1, wherein the communication interface is configured to receive inventory information regarding inventory and procurement of a replacement component that is not in stock or low in stock from the inventory management.
However, Horihata further discloses wherein the communication interface is configured to receive inventory information regarding inventory and procurement of a replacement component that is not in stock or low in stock from the inventory management (i.e. influence level is used to send a notification regarding inventory and procurement of a replacement component, wherein the influence level includes information of whether the component is in stock or low in stock) (Horihata: ¶ [0140] “In addition, the influence level computation unit 70 may compute the influence level of the repair place candidate having no stock to be higher. Note that the method described here is merely an exemplary method, and the invention is not limited thereto.” Furthermore, as cited in ¶ [0089] “First, the influence level computation unit 70 acquires a repair time taken to repair the vehicle 2 for each repair place candidate. The influence level computation unit 70 may acquire the repair time from the contents of each service of the repair shops listed on a WEB site, or the like, or may acquire the repair time by querying the repair shop, for example, by sending a notification for confirming the time required for repair to the repair shop.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to add Horihata’s communication interface is configured to receive inventory information regarding inventory and procurement of a replacement component that is not in stock or low in stock from the inventory management to Igarashi’s maintenance management device for managing maintenance of a plurality of industrial machines. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “provide a repair place transmission device and a repair place transmission method capable of providing information on a repair place while suppressing influence on a user's schedule by repairing the vehicle.” (Horihata: ¶ [0005]).
With respect to Claim 3:
Igarashi teaches:
The maintenance management device for industrial machines according to claim 1, wherein the communication interface is configured to receive inventory information regarding inventory and procurement of a replacement component for the failure-predicted component from the inventory management device (i.e. receive inventory information and replacement of component for the component of the work machine predicted to fail according to failure model) (Igarashi: Col. 5 Lines 41-52 “Among the above-described maintenance management information, the component database 111 stores, for example, the lead time of each component of the work machine 10, the inventory quantity of each component of the work machine 10, and the suppliable number of each component in its manufacturing period of the work machine 10. Here, the lead time is, for example, a necessary period from order to delivery of each component of the work machine 10 set for each region. The suppliable number in the manufacturing period of each component represents a supply capacity of component of the component supplier 50 in the manufacturing period.” Furthermore, as cited in Cols. 11-12 Lines 59-4 “Next, the replacement time predictor 126 executes a process P507 that predicts a replacement date due to failure. In this process P507, the replacement time predictor 126 refers to, for example, the machine database 112, and refers to the operation model created by the operation model creator 124 for each group of the work machines 10 created by the above-described failure model creator 123. Then, the operating time transition in future based on the operation model is input to the failure model created by the failure model creator 123, the replacement date due to failure for each component of each of the work machines 10 is calculated with each of the latest replacement date as the starting point.”).
With respect to Claim 5:
Igarashi teaches:
The maintenance management device for industrial machines according to claim 1, wherein the operation information includes a cumulative operation time of each of the plurality of industrial machines (i.e. operation information includes cumulative operation time of all the work machines) (Igarashi: Cols. 5-6 Lines 65-10 “Among the above-described maintenance management information, the operating information database 113 stores, for example, the operating information of each of the work machines 10. As described above, the operating information includes, for example, the cumulative used time, the cumulative running time, the cumulative turning time, the cumulative excavation time, the fuel consumption, the air intake volume, the engine oil amount, and the cooling water amount of each of the work machines 10. The operating information of the work machine 10 includes, for example, the discharge flow rate and the discharge pressure of the hydraulic pump, the temperature of the hydraulic oil, the pressure of the hydraulic oil in the hydraulic cylinder.”), and
wherein the processor is configured to predict the failure-predicted component and the predicted failure time thereof based on the cumulative operation time (i.e. failure model predicts failure of component and failure time based on cumulative operation time) (Igarashi: Col. 10 Lines 45-56 “Next, the operation model creator 124 executes the multiple regression analysis using a transition of the cumulative used times and the market information included in the obtained operating information to create an operation model of each of the work machines 10, and terminates the process shown in FIG. 6. The operation model creator 124 may create an operation model of the work machine 10 in each group created in the above-described grouping process P301 by the failure model creator 123. The operation model creator 124 may create an operation model by predicting a future operating time based on the past operating information without using the market information.” Furthermore, as cited in Col. 15 Lines 39-45 “The failure model creator 123 creates the 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 of the work machines 10 based on the service life model and the failure model.”).
With respect to Claim 7:
Igarashi teaches:
A production system, comprising: a plurality of industrial machines (Igarashi: Col. 3 Lines 53-63);
the maintenance management device for industrial machines according to claim 1 (See Claim 1; Igarashi: Col. 3 Lines 35-52); and
an inventory management device configured to manage inventory and procurement of replacement components for components of the plurality of industrial machines (Igarashi: Col. 5 Lines 12-32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 4-5 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 03/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 and 7 have been considered but are not persuasive. The Applicant asserts “Applicant respectfully contends that independent 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 original specification, maintenance of industrial machines is an important task in the field where the industrial machines are used, i.e., in a technical field. Further, as described, for example, in paragraph [0027] of the original specification, the 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 amends independent claim 1 to incorporate the features recited in claim 4, namely, "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 original specification, 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. The Examiner notes that the independent claim DO NOT “provide[s] a technical benefit or improvement to manage the maintenance of industrial machines more effectively and efficiently than the prior art” and DO NOT “demonstrate improvements to the industrial machinery maintenance field” because the result of the claims are merely transmitting a maintenance priority order based on a predicted failure time. Furthermore, 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, the procurement lead time of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value, the inventory of the replacement component is not secured until maintenance, and a date of the maintenance needs to be adjusted, 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 being 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, 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 5-7 of the Remarks disclosed, filed on 03/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 7 over Igarashi have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Publication 2024/0410713 to Horihata. Examiner would also like to note that it appears the Applicant is attempting to claim that “A” conditions include “when there is no inventory of a replacement component, the procurement lead time of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value, the inventory of the replacement component is not secured until maintenance, and a date of the maintenance needs to be adjusted” then “B” occurs or maintenance priority is lowered which would be incorrect. The Applicant has disclosure for if “A” occurs or “if the lead time for procurement of a replacement component is relatively long” then “B”occurs “the inventory of the replacement component may not be secured until maintenance, and the date of maintenance needs to be adjusted”. The Applicant also has disclosure of if “A” occurs or if “no inventory of a replacement component and the lead time for procurement of the replacement component is longer than a predetermined value” then “B” occurs or “the maintenance priority order determination unit 15 lowers the maintenance priority order of the failure-predicted component”.
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. 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.
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
March 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights