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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on April 20, 2026. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-15 and 19-20 have been amended. Claim 21 has been canceled.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending, and Claims 1, 19 and 20 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/28/2026 appears to be in compliance with the previsions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
The objection to claim 12 as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) claim interpretation and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3-10, 12-15 and 19-20 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-20 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 15, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that even if Applicant’s independent claims 1, 19 and 20 do include an abstract idea, Applicant’s claims 1, 19 and 20, when considered as a whole, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application as least because claims 1, 19 and 20 recite an apparatus and technique for intelligently determining a predicted failure occurrence of a maintenance object....
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, taking claim 20 for example, beyond the abstract idea, claim 20 recites the additional elements of “one or more processors” for executing the executable instructions. Can the processor perform the steps? Yes, it may. Can the human perform the steps in his/her mind? Yes, making estimation/prediction with known data is a fundamental building block of human ingenuity. Does the processor preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind? No. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
At best, the one or more processors may enhance the accuracy of load distribution and risk/cost prediction, however, the improvement to the maintenance operation is not to the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nothing in the claims purports to improve computer functioning or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. “The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computer as tools.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, the one or more processors do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In the Remarks on page 16, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that even assuming, arguendo, that Applicant’s independent claims 1, 19 and 20 are directed to the alleged abstract idea, the claims recite meaningful unconventional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2B is to determine whether any “inventive concept” which can transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The “inventive concept” may arise in one or more of the individual claim limitations or in the ordered combination of the limitations. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. An “inventive concept” that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer. Id. at 2358.
In the present case, beyond the abstract idea, the claim recites “one or more processors”, at best, the one or more processors may perform the generic computer functions, such as executing the instructions. Here, reciting one or more processors in the claim is merely adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer is not enough to qualify as “significantly more”. With this regard, the courts have held that a process defined simply as using a computer and memory to perform a series of mental steps that people can and regularly do perform in their heads. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794-95 (C.C.P.A. 1982). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In the Remarks on page 20, Applicant argues the combination of Yano, Hamada, and Ochi does not teach or suggest at least “estimating a load which is applied to a maintenance object in accordance with time, wherein the estimated load is determined based at least on a plurality of load distribution functions that each indicate a distribution of load amount per unit time for a respective load item of a plurality of respective load items that affect failure of respective pieces of equipment constituting the maintenance object”. However, the Examiner respectfully asserts that Applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly amended claims, and therefore, the newly amended claims will be fully addressed in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 U$C § 101
The 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.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-19 are directed to devices comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which fall within the statutory category of machines. Claim 20 is directed to a method for maintenance assistance, which falls within the statutory category of a process.
In Step 2A of Alice, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method claim as representative, claim 20 recites the limitations of “estimating a load which is applied to a maintenance object in accordance with time, predicting a failure occurrence probability which is a probability of occurrence of a failure in the equipment in accordance with time based on the estimated load, estimating a risk when operation of the maintenance object is hindered based at least on the predicted failure occurrence probability, and estimating a cost required for maintenance of the maintenance object based at least on the failure occurrence probability”. Making estimation is a fundamental building block of human ingenuity. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by one or more processors configured by executable instructions”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person can manually make estimation and prediction of a future event in his/her mind, which falls within the mental processes grouping. The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components do not take the claims out of the mental processes grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. Accordingly, the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional elements of “one or more processors” performing the steps. The specification discloses this processor at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating and transmitting information over a network. For example, the specification discloses “The processor corresponds to a processing unit 116 and implements various types of functions by functioning as an operation execution unit which executes processing of the program (see ¶ 48). Accordingly, no additional element in the claim that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because none of the limitations reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or another technology or technical field, nor do they impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)). The “inventive concept” may arise in one or more of the individual claim limitations or in the ordered combination of the limitations. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. An “inventive concept” that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer. Id. at 2358.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional elements of “one or more processors” performing the steps. The specification discloses this processor at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating and transmitting information over a network. For example, the specification discloses “The processor corresponds to a processing unit 116 and implements various types of functions by functioning as an operation execution unit which executes processing of the program (see ¶ 48). This processors, at best, may perform the generic computer functions including: receiving, storing, displaying and transmitting information over a network, which have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.5(d)(II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 612-13, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, generic computers performing generic computer functions to apply an abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 20 covers subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims product claims 1-18 and 19 parallel claim 20—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, these elements 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. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al., (US 2016/0318534, hereinafter: Yano), and in view of Hamada, (JP 2002230196, hereinafter: Hamada), and further in view of Ochi et al., (JP 2004191359, hereinafter: Ochi).
(Non-US patent references are cited by page number on the document unless they don’t have page numbers, then cited by PDF page number)
Regarding Claim 1, Yano discloses a maintenance assistance device comprising:
a processor (see Fig. 2, # 11; ¶ 35);
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program executable by the processor to configure the processor (see ¶ 35, claim 9) to perform operations comprising:
estimating a load which is applied to a maintenance object in accordance with time (see ¶ 54: estimate the transportation load and environment load; ¶ 63-64),
predicting, based at least on the estimated load, a failure occurrence probability which is a probability of occurrence of a failure in the equipment in accordance with time (see ¶ 8-9, ¶ 32, ¶ 42-43 predicting deterioration);
estimating a risk when operation of the maintenance object is hindered based at least on the predicted failure occurrence probability (see ¶ 68-70: calculates an expected amount of slip or skid for each train as the probability of occurrence of slip or skid).
Yano does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Hamada in an analogous art of maintenance support system discloses
wherein the estimated load is determined based at least on a plurality of load distribution functions that each indicate a distribution of a load amount per unit time for a respective load item of a plurality of respective load items that affect failure of respective pieces of equipment constituting the maintenance object (see pg. 5, ¶ 2-4; pg. 9, ¶ 7-9, pg. 10, ¶ 4; pg. 12, ¶ 6-11);
estimating a cost required for maintenance of the maintenance object based at least on the failure occurrence probability (see pg. 2, ¶ 7; pg. 4, ¶ 3-5; pg. 14, ¶ 10; pg. 21, last ¶).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Yano to include features as taught by Hamada in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for economic consideration. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Yano and Hamada do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Ochi discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the risk and the cost are obtained for the maintenance object as of an estimated due date for maintenance performance (see pg. 2, ¶ 6; pg. 4, ¶ 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Yano and in view of Hamada to include the features as taught by Ochi in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit for a more accurate plan for maintenance scheduling. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 3, Yano and Hamada do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Ochi discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 2, wherein
the risk and the cost are estimated for each of:
a case where maintenance of the equipment is conducted with details defined for the maintenance performance (see pg. 2, ¶ 3-5, pg. 7, ¶ 1-2), and
a case where maintenance details for the equipment are changed (see pg. 3, ¶ 2-3, pg. 5, ¶ 1-3, ¶ 11-12; pg. 9, ¶ 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Yano and in view of Hamada to include the features as taught by Ochi in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit for a more accurate plan for maintenance scheduling. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, Yano discloses result output means (see Fig. 1, # 104) for outputting display information with respect to time (see Fig. 11).
Yano and Hamada do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Ochi discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 3, further comprising
outputting display information indicating the risk and the cost with respect to time (see pg. 5, ¶ 2; pg. 10, ¶ 3; pg. 12, ¶ 5-6), wherein
making a comparison between the case where maintenance of the equipment is conducted with the details defined for the maintenance performance and the case where the maintenance details for the equipment are changed and displays the risk and the cost (see (¶ 2, ¶ 6; pg. 3, ¶ 3; pg. 4, ¶ 3; pg. 5, ¶ 6, pg. 12, ¶ 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Yano and in view of Hamada to include the features as taught by Ochi in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit for a more optimal solution for presenting the results, and enabling better decision making. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 7, Yano discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 1, the operations further comprising:
determining the load as a load distribution function indicating a distribution of a load amount per unit time in the maintenance object for a load item which is an item affecting a failure of the equipment (see Fig. 11; ¶ 21, ¶ 64).
Regarding Claim 8, Yano discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 7, wherein
the maintenance object is at least one of a mobile object and a facility related to the mobile object (see ¶ 32, ¶ 72), and
the operations further comprising determining the load distribution item based at least on planned schedule information which is a plan of running of the mobile object (see ¶ 7, ¶ 53-54, ¶ 57).
Regarding Claim 9, Yano discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 1, the operations further comprising:
predicting the failure occurrence probability based at least on an amount of load accumulated which is obtained based on the load (see ¶ 21, ¶ 64).
Regarding Claim 10, Yano discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 9, the operations further comprising:
determining the amount of load accumulated as an accumulated load amount function indicating an amount of load at a given time point (see ¶ 42, ¶ 51, ¶ 62-64).
Regarding Claim 11, Yano and Hamada do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Ochi discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 9, wherein the failure occurrence probability returns to an initial value set in advance for one piece of equipment when the one piece of equipment is maintained (see pg. 18, ¶ 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Yano and in view of Hamada to include the features as taught by Ochi in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit for a more optimal solution for presenting the results, and enabling better decision making. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 14, Yano and Hamada do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Ochi discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 1, the operations further comprising:
determining the risk as a loss caused when the operation of the maintenance object is hindered (see pg. 2, ¶ 5; pg. 5, ¶ 1; pg. 14, ¶ 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Yano and in view of Hamada to include the features as taught by Ochi in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit for a more optimal solution for presenting the results, and enabling better decision making. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 15, Yano and Hamada do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Ochi discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 1, wherein
the cost is determined based at least in part on a sum of an unplanned preservation cost which is an expense required for unplanned maintenance, a replacement cost which is a total sum of life cycle costs of the equipment, and an inspection cost which is an expense required for a regular inspection for the maintenance object (see pg. 2, ¶ 4; pg. 4, ¶ 5; pg. 7, ¶ 1; pg. 14, ¶ 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Yano and in view of Hamada to include the features as taught by Ochi in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit for a more optimal solution for presenting the results, and enabling better decision making. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 16, Yano discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 1, wherein
the maintenance object is at least one of a mobile object and a facility related to the mobile object (see ¶ 7, ¶ 53, ¶ 57).
In addition, claim 16 merely describes the type of maintenance object is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding Claim 17, Yano discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 16, wherein
the mobile object is a trainset of railroad vehicles, and the risk and the cost are obtained for each of the trainset (see ¶ 7-10, ¶ 57, ¶ 68).
In addition, claim 17 merely describes the type of maintenance object is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding Claim 18, Yano discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 16, wherein the facility related to the mobile object is railroad ground equipment (see ¶ 8-11, ¶ 32, ¶ 45).
In addition, claim 18 merely describes the type of maintenance object is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding Claim 19, Yano discloses a maintenance assistance device comprising:
a processor (see Fig. 2, # 11; ¶ 35);
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program executable by the processor to configure the processor (see ¶ 35, claim 9) to perform operations comprising:
estimating a load which is applied to a maintenance object in accordance with time (see ¶ 54: estimate the transportation load and environment load; ¶ 63-64),
based at least on the estimated load, predicting a failure occurrence probability which is a probability of occurrence of a failure in the equipment constituting the maintenance object in accordance with time (see ¶ 8-9, ¶ 32, ¶ 42-43 predicting deterioration);
estimating a risk when operation of the maintenance object is hindered based at least on the predicted failure occurrence probability (see ¶ 68-70: calculates an expected amount of slip or skid for each train as the probability of occurrence of slip or skid).
Yano does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Hamada in an analogous art of maintenance support system discloses
wherein the estimated load is determined based at least on a plurality of load distribution functions that each indicate a distribution of a load amount per unit time for a respective load item of a plurality of respective load items that affect failure of respective pieces of equipment constituting the maintenance object (see pg. 5, ¶ 2-4; pg. 9, ¶ 7-9, pg. 10, ¶ 4; pg. 12, ¶ 6-11);
estimating a cost required for maintenance of the maintenance object based at least on the failure occurrence probability (see pg. 2, ¶ 7; pg. 4, ¶ 3-5; pg. 14, ¶ 10; pg. 21, last ¶). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Yano to include features as taught by Hamada in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for economic consideration. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Yano discloses result output means (see Fig. 1, # 104) for outputting display information with respect to time (see Fig. 11).
Yano and Hamada do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Ochi discloses
performing a comparison between a case where maintenance is conducted as scheduled based at least on a plan determined in advance and a case where maintenance details for the equipment are changed (see pg. 2, ¶ 6; pg. 3, ¶ 3; pg. 4, ¶ 3; pg. 5, ¶ 6, pg. 10, ¶ 10; pg. 12, ¶ 5); and
based at least on the comparison, outputting display information indicating the risk and the cost with respect to time (see pg. 5, ¶ 2; pg. 10, ¶ 3; pg. 12, ¶ 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Yano and in view of Hamada to include the features as taught by Ochi in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit for a more optimal solution for presenting the results, and enabling better decision making. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 20, Yano discloses a maintenance assistance method comprising:
estimating, by one or more processors configured by executable instructions, a load which is applied to a maintenance object in accordance with time (see ¶ 54: a total load estimation part configured to estimate the transportation load and environment load; ¶ 63-64),
predicting, based at least the estimated load, a failure occurrence probability which is a probability of occurrence of a failure in the equipment in accordance with time (see ¶ 8-9, ¶ 32, ¶ 42-43 predicting deterioration);
estimating a risk when operation of the maintenance object is hindered based at least on the predicted failure occurrence probability (see ¶ 68-70: calculates an expected amount of slip or skid for each train as the probability of occurrence of slip or skid).
Yano does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Hamada in an analogous art of maintenance support system discloses
wherein the estimated load is determined based at least on a plurality of load distribution functions that each indicate a distribution of a load amount per unit time for a respective load item of a plurality of respective load items that affect failure of respective pieces of equipment constituting the maintenance object (see pg. 5, ¶ 2-4; pg. 9, ¶ 7-9, pg. 10, ¶ 4; pg. 12, ¶ 6-11);
estimating a cost required for maintenance of the maintenance object based at least on the failure occurrence probability (see pg. 2, ¶ 7; pg. 4, ¶ 3-5; pg. 14, ¶ 10; pg. 21, last ¶).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Yano to include features as taught by Hamada in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for economic consideration. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yana and in view of Hamada and Ochi as applied to claims 1-4, 7-11 and 14-20 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al., (JP 2005157793, hereinafter: Yamazaki).
(Non-US patent references are cited by page number on the document unless they don’t have page numbers, then cited by PDF page number)
Regarding Claim 5, Yano, Hamada and Ochi do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Yamazaki in an analogous art maintenance plan supporting system discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 4, the operations further comprising:
displaying respective upper limits for the risk and the cost (see Abstract; pg. 12, ¶ 4-5; pg. 27, ¶ 6-8; pg. 10, ¶ 3; pg. 13, ¶ 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Yano and in view of Hamada and Ochi to include features as taught by Yamazaki in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhanced data presentation, and enabling better decision making. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 6, Yano, Hamada and Ochi do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Yamazaki discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 1, the operations further comprising:
searching for a case which minimizes the risk and the cost when the maintenance details for the equipment are changed (see pg. 2, ¶ 3; pg. 4, ¶ 6; pg. 11, ¶ 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Yano and in view of Hamada and Ochi to include features as taught by Yamazaki in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhanced data presentation, and enabling better decision making. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, Yano discloses determining a coefficient indicating the relationship between the transportation load and accumulation of the amount of transportation based on the actual influence of the amount of transportation on specific ground equipment (see ¶ 63).
Yano, Hamada and Ochi do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Yamazaki discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 1, wherein
an upper limit for an equipment failure risk which is a degree of influence degree of an equipment failure is defined (see pg. 10, ¶ 7; pg. 12, ¶ 3-5; pg. 27, ¶ 5-6), and
the operations further comprise estimating, based at least on the upper limit, a due date for maintenance performance when the maintenance of the equipment is to be conducted (see pg. 10, ¶ 6-7; pg. 12, ¶ 4-5; pg. 20, ¶ 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Yano and in view of Hamada and Ochi to include features as taught by Yamazaki in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an enhanced data presentation, and enabling better decision making. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 13, Yano and Hamada do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Ochi discloses the maintenance assistance device according to claim 12, the operations further comprising:
determining the equipment failure risk using a risk influence degree representing influence of a failure of the equipment together with the failure occurrence probability (see pg. 2, ¶ 6-7; pg. 15, ¶ 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Yano and in view of Hamada to include the features as taught by Ochi in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit for a more optimal solution for presenting the results, and enabling better decision making. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huo et al., (CN 114418173) discloses a method for load prediction and load estimation based on multiple fluctuation frequency characteristic components.
Meis et al., (WO 2022167435) discloses a method for detecting and evaluating extreme loads in order to protect a machine element against overload breakage using a loading time function and a statistical distribution function.
Behrangrad et al., (US 2015/0100171) discloses a load control method suppressing reduction in functionality of load resource brought about by demand response.
ELBsat et al., (US 2019/0271978) discloses a predictive maintenance system for generating maintenance schedule for a building equipment based on the amount of one or more input resources predicted by the degradation impact model.
Fukui et al., (WO 2019106753) discloses a maintenance planning system for monitoring risk abnormality occurrence and the occurrence probability and executing maintenance planning program.
Bellrose et al., (US 2019/0213808) discloses a method for monitoring a life cycle of one or more parts for an automobile and providing suggestions for maintenance of the automobile.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN G CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached on 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights