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 non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s submission and preliminary amendment filed on September 17, 2024. Claim 21 has been canceled.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending, and Claims 1, 19 and 20 are independent.
Priority
Applicant claims the priority of a Foreign Patent application No. JP 2022-066767 filed on April 14, 2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2024 and 10/08/2025 appear to be in compliance with the previsions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the Abstract received on September 17, 2024 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification received on September 17, 2024 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendments
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 is missing an ending period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 19 are directed to devices comprising one or more of “load estimation means for estimating…”, “failure prediction mans for predicting…”, “risk estimation means for estimating a risk…”, “cost estimation means for estimating a cost…”, “result output means for outputting…”, and “a search unit…” which are directed the means (or step) plus function limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, (f), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, see MPEP 2181 (I)(A).
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Here, the “means for” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder with functional language. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6 and 19, as discussed above, the claims include language that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), or sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to (1) disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function and/or (2) clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. Here, the claims recite one or more of the following limitations: 1) “load estimation means for estimating at least one of a load …, obtains the load as a load distribution function.., and obtains the load distribution item on the basis of planned schedule…” are directed to specialized functions for estimating at least one of a load…, obtains the load as a load distribution function, and obtains the load distribution item, and thus the functions are indefinite. 2) “failure prediction means for predicting , on the basis of the estimated load, a failure occurrence probability…, predicts the failure occurrence probability on the basis of an amount of load…, obtains the amount of load…, estimates, on the basis of the upper limit, a due date for maintenance performance…, obtains the equipment failure risk using a risk influence degree representing influence of a failure of the equipment…, and predicting a failure occurrence probability of a failure in equipment…” are directed to specialized functions for predicting, obtaining and estimating, and thus the functions are indefinite. 3) “risk estimation means for estimating a risk when operation of the maintenance object…, obtains the risk as a loss caused when the operation on the maintenance object is hindered and estimating a risk when operation of the operation of the maintenance object is hindered….” are directed to specialized functions for estimating a risk and obtaining the risk, and thus the functions are indefinite. 4) “cost estimation means for estimating a cost required for maintenance of the maintenance objection…, and regards, as the cost, a sum of an unplanned preservation cost which is an expense required…” are directed to specialized functions for estimating a cost required for maintenance and regarding a sum of an unplanned preservation cost…, and thus the functions are indefinite. 5) “result output means for outputting display information indicating the risk and the cost with respect to time, makes a comparison between the case…, display respective upper limits…” are directed to specialized functions for estimating, comparing, and displaying…, and thus the functions are indefinite. 6) “a search unit which searches for a case… ” is directed to specialized functions for searching a case which minimizes the risk and the cost, and thus the functions are indefinite.
For each of the indefinite function as described above, Applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant is required to clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, without reciting sufficient structure in the claims to achieve the functions, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are directed to a system comprising software per se, which are not fall within the four statutory categories. However, claims 1-19 will be included in Step 2 Analysis for the purpose of compact prosecution. Claim 20 is directed to a method maintenance assistance without tied to a particular machine for performing the steps, which falls outside of the four statutory categories. However, claim 20 will be included in Step 2 Analysis for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With respect to claims 1-19, as understood, claims 1 and 19 recite as a device (apparatus) without positive recitation of any physical structure in the body is considered to be software per se and therefore is not fall within any of the four statutory categories. If Applicant desired to claim an apparatus (device) claim, it must be included at least one identified hardware (e.g., a processor, memory) in the body of the claim.
Further, software, program, instructions or code not claimed as stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium/memory are not statutory because they are directed to electromagnetic carrier signals.
Furthermore, software, program, instructions or code are stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium/memory, but not claimed as being computer executable and executed by a computer are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in a computer.
With respect to claim 20, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim is directed to a method without tied to a particular machine in the body of the claim for performing the steps. One factor to consider when determining whether a claim recites a §101 patent eligible process is to determine if the claimed process (1) is tied to a particular machine or; (2) transforms a particular article to a different state or thing. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) aff’d, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (U.S. 2010). (Machine-or-Transformation Test).
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 at least one of a load which is applied to a maintenance object in accordance with time and a load which is applied to equipment constituting the maintenance object in accordance with time, predicting, on the basis of the estimated load, a failure occurrence probability which is a probability of occurrence of a failure in the equipment in accordance with time, estimating a risk when operation of the maintenance object is hindered on the basis of the predicted failure occurrence probability, and estimating a cost required for maintenance of the maintenance object on the basis of 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 (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. Nothing in the claim can the claim out of the mental processes grouping. 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 no additional element for performing the steps, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a machine is not required in the claim. Even if claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processor”, as described in [0043] of the Specification, for 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 no additional element for performing the steps, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a machine is not required in the claim. Even if claim 20 recites the additional elements of “a processor”, as described in [0043] of the Specification, for 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 processor, at best, may perform the steps of 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:
load estimation means (see Fig. 1, # 105) for estimating at least one of a load which is applied to a maintenance object in accordance with time and a load which is applied to equipment constituting the maintenance object in accordance with time (see ¶ 54: a total load estimation part configured to estimate the transportation load and environment load; ¶ 63-64);
failure prediction means for predicting, on the basis of 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);
risk estimation means for estimating a risk when operation of the maintenance object is hindered on the basis of 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
a load estimation means (see pg. 2, last ¶; pg. 3, ¶ 7: a load estimating means for estimating the load),
cost estimation means for estimating a cost required for maintenance of the maintenance object on the basis of 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 and Hamada do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Ochi in an analogous art for risk and maintenance management discloses
a failure prediction means (see pg. 3, last ¶: a failure probability calculating means);
a risk estimation means for (see pg. 5, ¶ 2; pg. 22, ¶ 8: a risk estimating means for estimating a risk and cost).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the teams in the system of Yano and in view of Hamada by the teams as taught by Ochi in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing a broader range of labeling benefits in technical writing. 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 does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Hamada 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 and a case where maintenance details for the equipment are changed (see pg. 2, ¶ 5, pg. 5, ¶ 1-3, ¶ 11-12).
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 the teaching of Hamada in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of more accurate calculation. 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
result output means for 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
the result output means makes 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, wherein the load estimation means obtains 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, and the load estimation means obtains the load distribution item on the basis of 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, wherein the failure prediction means predicts the failure occurrence probability on the basis of 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, wherein the failure prediction means obtains 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, wherein the risk estimation means obtains 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 estimation means regards, as the cost, 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:
failure prediction means for predicting a failure occurrence probability which is a probability of occurrence of a failure in equipment constituting a maintenance object in accordance with time (see ¶ 8-9, ¶ 32, ¶ 42-43 predicting deterioration);
risk estimation means for estimating a risk when operation of the maintenance object is hindered on the basis of 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
cost estimation means for estimating a cost required for maintenance of the maintenance object on the basis of 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 the maintenance assistance device according to claim 3, further comprising
a failure prediction means (see pg. 3, last ¶: a failure probability calculating means);
a risk estimation means for (see pg. 5, ¶ 2; pg. 22, ¶ 8: a risk estimating means for estimating a risk and cost).
result output means for 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
wherein the result output means makes a comparison between a case where maintenance is conducted as scheduled on a basis or in line with a plan determined in advance and a case where 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 20, Yano discloses a maintenance assistance method comprising:
estimating at least one of a load which is applied to a maintenance object in accordance with time and a load which is applied to equipment constituting the 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, on the basis of 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 on the basis of 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
estimating a cost required for maintenance of the maintenance object on the basis of 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, wherein the result output means further displays 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, further comprising a search unit which searches 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 failure prediction means estimates, on the basis of the upper limit, a due date for maintenance performance when the maintenance of the equipment is to be (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, wherein the failure prediction means obtains 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.
ELBsat et al., (US 2019/0271978) discloses a predictive maintenance system for automatic service work order generation.
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.
He et al., (CN 111222259) discloses a preventative maintenance decision optimization model comprising models for predicting a probability failure occurs and estimating a maintenance time and cost.
Yuan et al., “Predictive Maintenance of Shield Tunnels”, Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 20092,China. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 38 (2013) 69-86.
Paprocka, “The model of maintenance planning and production scheduling for maximizing robustness”, International Journal of Production Research, 2018.
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