DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 1-14 and 16 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1-14 have been preliminarily amended. Claim 15 has been canceled. Claim 16 has been newly added. This action is Non-Final.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant' s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a measurement device [...adapted to be utilized, ...adapted to collect..., adapted to forward] in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 6, 8, and 14 is/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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitation "the effort value" in claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 8; the term “potential”/“potentially” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “potential”/“potentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner will interpret “potential”/“potentially” to be indicative of downtime.
Regarding Claim(s) 14; claim limitation(s) “a measurement device [...adapted to be utilized, ...adapted to collect..., adapted to forward]” in claim 14; invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed functions, however there is no disclosure of any particular structure either explicitly or inherently to perform the claimed function(s). This “device” coupled with functional language is not adequate structure because it does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, 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 and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should 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.
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As noted above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to performed the claimed functions (i.e., “a measurement device [...adapted to be utilized, ...adapted to collect..., adapted to forward]”). The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the invention had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 13; the claim calls for a device; however, the body of the claim does not positively recite any hardware embodiment. As recited in the body of the claim, the claimed device contains “a program product.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “a program product” is an implementation of software. Because the claimed device contains only software components, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter (i.e., software-pre-se). The mere recitation of the machine/device in the preamble with an absence of a hardware element in the body of the claim fails to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101. The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended to positively recites at least one hardware element within the body of the claim to make the claim statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Further, for the purpose of compact prosecution the examiner will further evaluate the claim as it was statutory with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., abstract idea without significantly more).
Step 1: claim(s) 1-14 and 16 are directed to a process, manufacture, and/or machine. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 1, and similar claim(s) 12-13, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
A method of servicing a continuous flow engine,
acquiring a component maintenance list, wherein the component maintenance list specifies components to be serviced during a next maintenance or overhaul,
identifying at least one interrelated component of the continuous flow engine comprising retrieving data from a component database and identifying physically or functionally interrelated components,
evaluating a benefit of including the at least one interrelated component in such maintenance or overhaul, wherein the evaluation takes into account a failure mode, wherein the failure mode takes into account a probability of replacement, a probability of failure, a probability of non-reparability or a combination of said probabilities,
wherein the evaluation takes into account a physical assembly structure of the continuous flow engines and includes a reduced amount of effort based on additional effort taking into account a required disassembly and assembly of the continuous flow engine based on the component maintenance list, and
providing a list of the at least one interrelated component beneficially being additionally serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 12-13 includes acquiring a component maintenance list, wherein the component maintenance list specifies components to be serviced during a next maintenance or overhaul, identifying at least one interrelated component of the continuous flow engine comprising retrieving data from a component database and identifying physically or functionally interrelated components, evaluating a benefit of including the at least one interrelated component in such maintenance or overhaul, wherein the evaluation takes into account a failure mode, wherein the failure mode takes into account a probability of replacement, a probability of failure, a probability of non-reparability or a combination of said probabilities, wherein the evaluation takes into account a physical assembly structure of the continuous flow engines and includes a reduced amount of effort based on additional effort taking into account a required disassembly and assembly of the continuous flow engine based on the component maintenance list, and providing a list of the at least one interrelated component beneficially being additionally serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul, thus, claim 1, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite “commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" in the form of business relations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite as concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. That is, other than reciting for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 12-13, i.e., descriptive data regarding a continuous flow engine (i.e., outside the scope of the claim), a product, and/or a device; nothing in these claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and similar claim(s) 12-13, includes acquiring a component maintenance list, wherein the component maintenance list specifies components to be serviced during a next maintenance or overhaul, identifying at least one interrelated component of the continuous flow engine comprising retrieving data from a component database and identifying physically or functionally interrelated components, evaluating a benefit of including the at least one interrelated component in such maintenance or overhaul, wherein the evaluation takes into account a failure mode, wherein the failure mode takes into account a probability of replacement, a probability of failure, a probability of non-reparability or a combination of said probabilities, wherein the evaluation takes into account a physical assembly structure of the continuous flow engines and includes a reduced amount of effort based on additional effort taking into account a required disassembly and assembly of the continuous flow engine based on the component maintenance list, and providing a list of the at least one interrelated component beneficially being additionally serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul, which, encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea. (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 12-13, recite i.e., descriptive data regarding a continuous flow engine (i.e., outside the scope of the claim), a product, and/or a device. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 12-13 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1, and similar claim(s) 12-13 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 12-13 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 12-13, i.e., descriptive data regarding a continuous flow engine (i.e., outside the scope of the claim), a product, and/or a device; thus, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and similar claim(s) 12-13 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 12-13 is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2-11, 14, and 16, claim(s) 2-11, 14, and 16 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as the claims recite further concepts of "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations and/or further recite “Mental Processes” as the claims recite further concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., claim 14 – measurement device collect/forward to a database) Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson et al. (US 2009/0248545 A1).
Regarding Claim 1;
Robinson discloses a method of servicing a continuous flow engine, wherein the continuous flow engine is utilized to generate power based on a fluid stream running through said continuous flow engine or compresses a fluid stream running through the continuous flow engine, wherein the continuous flow engine contains a plurality of components (FIG. 13 and [0016] – engine and [0073] - The disclosed methods and systems may provide a related parts sales tool for products. In particular, the disclosed methods and systems may be used to identify, based on one or more parts selected by a user (i.e., to service, replace, and/or recondition the one or more parts), other related kits, replacement parts, and/or repair parts that should to be brought to the user's attention to ensure that a complete repair can be made. In this manner, both product sales and customer satisfaction may be improved and [0075] – engine oil cooler), the method comprising:
acquiring a component maintenance list, wherein the component maintenance list specifies components to be serviced during a next maintenance or overhaul ([0073] and [0075] - As such, the user may select the appropriate product using select product window 1002; the appropriate groups (i.e., the engine oil group and the engine oil cooler group) from select group window 1004; and the spring valve and the gasket from select individual parts feature 1022 as discussed above in connection with FIG. 10. The user may then select add to parts list button 1026, and [0078]),
identifying at least one interrelated component of the continuous flow engine comprising retrieving data from a component database and identifying physically or functionally interrelated components ([0047]-[0051] - As used herein, "repair" may refer to any maintenance action performed on a product that involves the replacement, recondition, or repair of two or more parts of the product. For example, reconditioning of a vehicle water pump may include the replacement, recondition, or repair of an impeller, a gear, a ball bearing, and a gasket, among other parts and [0078] - Parts-ordering environment 100 may next identify any related parts associated with the user's selected parts (steps 1305),
evaluating a benefit of including the at least one interrelated component in such maintenance or overhaul, wherein the evaluation takes into account a failure mode, wherein the failure mode takes into account a probability of replacement, a probability of failure, a probability of non-reparability or a combination of said probabilities ([0046] and [0050] - Repair level field 810 may include characters or other identifiers specifying repair levels associated with particular part names. In one embodiment, repair level field 810 may include, associated with each part name in standard part name field 806, a level of "1," "2," or "3." Level "1" may indicate "reusable parts." As used herein, "reusable pars" may include parts that are normally visually inspected and replaced only if they are damaged (e.g., a compressor housing, a turbine housing, or the like). In one embodiment, level "1" parts may be so designated according to reuse and salvage guidelines or other standards known in the art. Level "2" may indicate parts that, if removed, should always be replaced (i.e., 100% replacement parts). In one embodiment, level "2" parts may be those that are likely to be damaged if removed. For example, level "2" may correspond to pins, plates, rings, seals, O-rings, and/or other fastening, sealing, and/or absorbing parts subject to physical stress or wear that, if removed, should be replaced. Level "1" and level "2" parts, together, may include all of the parts required to recondition, repair or restore an entire group or assembly of parts, such as parts within a particular group name, as mentioned above. In contrast, level "3" may correspond to parts that are needed to replace (as opposed to recondition, repair, or restore) a group. For example, parts required to replace the entire hydraulics group or cab electronics group may be specified as level "3" parts),
wherein the evaluation takes into account a physical assembly structure of the continuous flow engines and includes a reduced amount of effort based on additional effort taking into account a required disassembly and assembly of the continuous flow engine based on the component maintenance list ([0046] - Repair parts information 210 may include information for identifying a repair that the customer intends to or should perform, based on a particular part "in hand." In other words, repair parts information 210 may implement repair logic, expert knowledge, or the like, which identifies, based on one or more selected parts being replaced by the customer, the repair that the customer is probably performing (or should perform) and [0073] - The disclosed methods and systems may provide a related parts sales tool for products. In particular, the disclosed methods and systems may be used to identify, based on one or more parts selected by a user (i.e., to service, replace, and/or recondition the one or more parts), other related kits, replacement parts, and/or repair parts that should to be brought to the user's attention to ensure that a complete repair can be made. In this manner, both product sales and customer satisfaction may be improved and [0086] - It is to be appreciated that the repair level filtering of step 1326 may result in the removal of related parts that are inappropriate given the repair associated with the user's selected parts (i.e., the parts the user has selected and has "in hand" for replacement). For example, if the user has disassembled the product to the extent required to replace a level 3 part (i.e., a relatively minor repair), parts-ordering environment 100 may remove related parts associated with more extensive repairs (i.e., level "1" and level "2" parts). Thus, the repair level filtering of step 1326 may utilize knowledge of the individual products to determine, based on the user's selected parts (i.e., the part or parts the user has "in hand" and wishes to replace), the extent to which the product must have been disassembled to reach the selected parts. In this manner, related repair parts that are inappropriate given the circumstances may be removed, leaving only those related parts that are needed to complete a repair commensurate with the extent to which the product has been disassembled to reach the user's selected parts), and
providing a list of the at least one interrelated component beneficially being additionally serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul (FIG. 10-12).
Regarding Claim 4;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses wherein at least one interrelated component are components being adapted to contact the fluid stream during utilization of the continuous flow engine (FIG. 12 – For example - After Cooler and Line, Oil Filter, Valve).
Regarding Claim 6;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further wherein the effort value additionally includes adapting the additional effort based on an interrelated component already being identified to be additional serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul ([0046] and [0073] and [0086] - It is to be appreciated that the repair level filtering of step 1326 may result in the removal of related parts that are inappropriate given the repair associated with the user's selected parts (i.e., the parts the user has selected and has "in hand" for replacement). For example, if the user has disassembled the product to the extent required to replace a level 3 part (i.e., a relatively minor repair), parts-ordering environment 100 may remove related parts associated with more extensive repairs (i.e., level "1" and level "2" parts). Thus, the repair level filtering of step 1326 may utilize knowledge of the individual products to determine, based on the user's selected parts (i.e., the part or parts the user has "in hand" and wishes to replace), the extent to which the product must have been disassembled to reach the selected parts. In this manner, related repair parts that are inappropriate given the circumstances may be removed, leaving only those related parts that are needed to complete a repair commensurate with the extent to which the product has been disassembled to reach the user's selected parts).
Regarding Claim 7;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses wherein identifying at least one interrelated component comprises retrieving component data form a component database preferably a remote database (FIG. 1 and [0031]).
Regarding Claim 9;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses adapting a list of the one interrelated component beneficially being additionally serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul based on data acquired during said next maintenance or overhaul to include an additional component or leave out a component included in the list of the at least one interrelated component (beneficially being additionally serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul ([0046] and [0073] and [0086] - It is to be appreciated that the repair level filtering of step 1326 may result in the removal of related parts that are inappropriate given the repair associated with the user's selected parts (i.e., the parts the user has selected and has "in hand" for replacement). For example, if the user has disassembled the product to the extent required to replace a level 3 part (i.e., a relatively minor repair), parts-ordering environment 100 may remove related parts associated with more extensive repairs (i.e., level "1" and level "2" parts). Thus, the repair level filtering of step 1326 may utilize knowledge of the individual products to determine, based on the user's selected parts (i.e., the part or parts the user has "in hand" and wishes to replace), the extent to which the product must have been disassembled to reach the selected parts. In this manner, related repair parts that are inappropriate given the circumstances may be removed, leaving only those related parts that are needed to complete a repair commensurate with the extent to which the product has been disassembled to reach the user's selected parts).
Regarding Claim(s) 12; claim(s) 12 is/are directed to a/an program product associated with the method claimed in claim(s) 1. Claim(s) 12 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 13; claim(s) 13 is/are directed to a/an device associated with the program product claimed in claim(s) 1. Claim(s) 13 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 16;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses wherein servicing the continuous flow engine by servicing the component to be serviced and the at least one interrelated component ([0046] - Repair parts information 210 may include information for identifying a repair that the customer intends to or should perform, based on a particular part "in hand." In other words, repair parts information 210 may implement repair logic, expert knowledge, or the like, which identifies, based on one or more selected parts being replaced by the customer, the repair that the customer is probably performing (or should perform) and [0073] - The disclosed methods and systems may provide a related parts sales tool for products. In particular, the disclosed methods and systems may be used to identify, based on one or more parts selected by a user (i.e., to service, replace, and/or recondition the one or more parts), other related kits, replacement parts, and/or repair parts that should to be brought to the user's attention to ensure that a complete repair can be made. In this manner, both product sales and customer satisfaction may be improved).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 2-3, 5, 8, 10-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 2009/0248545 A1) in view of Micheal (US 2022/0147952 A1)
Regarding Claim 2;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the probability of replacement is determined utilizing historic data and simulated data.
However, in an analogous art, Micheal teaches wherein the probability of replacement is determined utilizing historic data and simulated data ([0087] - After one or more of the data consolidation functions 309, 310, 311, 312 have been applied to the data, the part replacement events are grouped in the part grouping process 313 to form a complete asset history 314 of parts within an asset, which is then aggregated via the data aggregator 315 to the entire portfolio of assets. While the age of each asset in a portfolio may be determined via the measurement readings 306, the age of each part that can be replaced in an asset needs to be deduced based on the dates of historical replacements, which will only be accurate if the part positions have been accurately determined by the part position detection function 309 and [0090] - In some embodiments, a fitter, such as the Weibull fitter 317, may be applied to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts of a defined part type, obtained from the age calculation function 316. FIGS. 14a and 14b show examples of fitting a Weibull probability distribution function or a Weibull cumulative distribution function to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts, respectively and [0093] - In some embodiments, the calibrated Weibull function 317 may be used to generate a Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) simulation 319, which effectively provides whole system availability and downtime simulations at asset or fleet levels. By adding cost elements to the RAM simulation 319 and Weibull function 317, a through life cycle cost simulation 318 may forecast future costs based on existing maintenance processes and propose alternative outcomes via what if analyses. The outputs from the RAM simulation and analysis 319 and the through life cycle cost simulation 318 can be used to generate future part replacement strategies (forward-looking plans) 321 using an equipment modification and replacement forecasting process 320 and [0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Micheal to the “probabilities” of Robinson to include wherein the probability of replacement is determined utilizing historic data and simulated data.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Micheal to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows accurate determination of the age of parts across a portfolio of assets based on extracting and consolidating maintenance records using natural language processing, asset ontologies, and automated statistical analysis (Micheal, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 3;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses the at least one interrelated component ([0047]-[0051] and [0078]).
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation takes into account the failure probability of failure, wherein the failure probability of failure is at least partially determined using simulations of the wear out of the at least one ... component.
However, in an analogous art, Micheal teaches wherein the evaluation takes into account the failure probability of failure ([0099] - ...failure...) wherein the failure probability of failure is at least partially determined using simulations of the wear out of the at least one ... component ([0099] - In some embodiments, the wear out failures 505 may also be used to simulate future maintenance and operating costs with the through life cycle cost simulation 318, which also impacts the optimal replacement strategy process 324. The optimised replacement strategy process 324, in conjunction with the identification of random failure parts 507, determines the optimal inventory requirements and generates insights and recommendations for the user.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Micheal to the “evaluation” and interrelated component of Robinson to include wherein the evaluation takes into account the failure probability of failure, wherein the failure probability of failure is at least partially determined using simulations of the wear out of the at least one interrelated component.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Micheal to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows accurate determination of the age of parts across a portfolio of assets based on extracting and consolidating maintenance records using natural language processing, asset ontologies, and automated statistical analysis (Micheal, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 5;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses ... servicing of continuous flow engines... (FIG. 13 and [0016] – engine and [0073] and [0075]).
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: utilizing a priority factor, wherein the priority factor is automatically provided based on a historic database containing data of components serviced in past ... and/or received from an interface adapted to be utilized by an operator, wherein the priority factor increases the benefit of including the an evaluated spare part in the list.
However, in an analogous art, Micheal teaches further comprising: utilizing a priority factor ([0106] - higher priority), wherein the priority factor is automatically provided based on a historic database containing data of components serviced in past ... and/or received from an interface adapted to be utilized by an operator, wherein the priority factor increases the benefit of including the an evaluated spare part in the list ([0106] - For example, the system 300 may first identify all parts with a change recommendation for the maintenance strategy. Then, among these identified parts, the system may further identify critical or functionally significant parts and associate them with higher priority for display in the top rows of the table. Often, an asset may have thousands of parts, and using information such as part criticality score 1205, information from the Weibull fitter 317, and functionally significant parts 310 can significantly improve ease of use of the graphical user interface. The user can filter, search and sort the list of parts that have recommendations for changing maintenance strategies and [0119]-[0121] - In some embodiments, the predictive maintenance management system 300 determines, from the asset history 314, a set of replaced parts. The set of replaced parts is compared with at least one of a task list of parts, an inventory of parts, or a part replacement schedule to determine part utilization in the portfolio of assets. A task list rationalization process 325 adjusts a part ordering schedule and the task list based on the determined part utilisation to avoid over or under ordering parts. FIG. 23 shows an example of a task list analysis screen 2300 included in the graphical user interface 1500. In some embodiments, the task list analysis screen 2300 sorts the part utilisation 2330 to collate and prioritise display of parts 2320 that may, or may not be, included on the task list, for example, using a series of filters 2310. In some embodiments, the user may select the action 2340 to modify the quantity of parts on the task list).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Micheal to the method of Robinson to include further comprising: utilizing a priority factor, wherein the priority factor is automatically provided based on a historic database containing data of components serviced in past ... and/or received from an interface adapted to be utilized by an operator, wherein the priority factor increases the benefit of including the an evaluated spare part in the list.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Micheal to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows accurate determination of the age of parts across a portfolio of assets based on extracting and consolidating maintenance records using natural language processing, asset ontologies, and automated statistical analysis (Micheal, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 8;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson discloses ... at least one interrelated component in such maintenance or overhaul contains ... of the continuous flow engine... including the at least one interrelated component in the list of components to be serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul. ([0047]-[0051] and [0078]).
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose wherein evaluating a benefit of including the at least one ... component ... comprises a downtime simulation, wherein the downtime simulation comprises simulating a potential reduction of downtime ... based on potentially including the at least one ... component...
However, in an analogous art, Micheal teaches wherein evaluating a benefit of including the at least one ... component ... comprises a downtime simulation, wherein the downtime simulation comprises simulating a potential reduction of downtime ... based on potentially including the at least one ... component... ([0103] - The optimisation of the replacement times in the strategy optimisation process 324 may be based on an awareness of the cost of maintenance and downtime 703. In some embodiments, the cost of maintenance and down time 703 may be determined from the site's operation properties 701 and cost metrics 501, as well as the maintenance downtime metrics 702, which are derived from the asset history 314 and [0109]-[0110]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Micheal to the method of Robinson to include wherein evaluating a benefit of including the at least one ... component ... comprises a downtime simulation, wherein the downtime simulation comprises simulating a potential reduction of downtime ... based on potentially including the at least one ... component....
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Micheal to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows accurate determination of the age of parts across a portfolio of assets based on extracting and consolidating maintenance records using natural language processing, asset ontologies, and automated statistical analysis (Micheal, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 10;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation takes into account the probability of failure, wherein the probability of failure is at least partially determined utilizing at least one historic failure database, wherein the historic failure database contains data regarding a historic wear out of a plurality of similar or identical components.
However, in an analogous art, Micheal teaches wherein the evaluation takes into account the probability of failure, wherein the probability of failure is at least partially determined utilizing at least one historic failure database, wherein the historic failure database contains data regarding a historic wear out of a plurality of similar or identical components ([0090]-[0091] - In some embodiments, a fitter, such as the Weibull fitter 317, may be applied to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts of a defined part type, obtained from the age calculation function 316. FIGS. 14a and 14b show examples of fitting a Weibull probability distribution function or a Weibull cumulative distribution function to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts, respectively. The calibrated Weibull function from the fitter 317 is then used to determine the failure pattern of the part using a failure pattern analysis module 322. It is obvious to one skilled in the art that order probabilistic or statistical functions may be used to generate a fit to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts. Failure metrics may be calculated using a metrics calculator 323, based on the failure pattern of the part. It should be noted that other functions instead of a Weibull function may be used generate the distribution 317 of age at replacement of a part type. In some embodiments of the invention, the Weibull fitting may produce one or more of three parameters, shape, scale and location, that may be used to construct probability and cumulative density functions associated with failure patterns. In some cases, where multiple failure patterns for the same part are identified, IronMan® may construct multiple sets of parameters, each with their own failure pattern. The shape parameter enables the identification of three fundamental failure patterns; premature failure, random failure, and wear out failure. In some embodiments, the system provides recommendations for maintenance interventions associated with the failure patterns. For example, in the case of premature failure, any previously determined replacement or maintenance strategy is stopped, a root cause analysis (RCA) may be performed, and on-condition maintenance may be considered if it is practical to contain the unexpected premature failures until the cause has been eliminated. In the case of random failure, an on-condition maintenance process is applied if it is practical and cost effective. In the case of wear out failure, both scheduled replacement and on condition maintenance are applicable, although scheduled replacement may be more advantageous when the shape parameter strongly indicates wear out failure pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Micheal to the method of Robinson to include wherein the evaluation takes into account the probability of failure, wherein the probability of failure is at least partially determined utilizing at least one historic failure database, wherein the historic failure database contains data regarding a historic wear out of a plurality of similar or identical components
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Micheal to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows accurate determination of the age of parts across a portfolio of assets based on extracting and consolidating maintenance records using natural language processing, asset ontologies, and automated statistical analysis (Micheal, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 11;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation takes into account the probability of failure, wherein the probability of failure is at least partially determined using simulations of a wear out of the at least one interrelated component.
However, in an analogous art, Micheal teaches wherein the evaluation takes into account the probability of failure, wherein the probability of failure is at least partially determined using simulations of a wear out of the at least one interrelated component. ([0090]-[0091] - In some embodiments, a fitter, such as the Weibull fitter 317, may be applied to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts of a defined part type, obtained from the age calculation function 316. FIGS. 14a and 14b show examples of fitting a Weibull probability distribution function or a Weibull cumulative distribution function to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts, respectively. The calibrated Weibull function from the fitter 317 is then used to determine the failure pattern of the part using a failure pattern analysis module 322. It is obvious to one skilled in the art that order probabilistic or statistical functions may be used to generate a fit to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts. Failure metrics may be calculated using a metrics calculator 323, based on the failure pattern of the part. It should be noted that other functions instead of a Weibull function may be used generate the distribution 317 of age at replacement of a part type. In some embodiments of the invention, the Weibull fitting may produce one or more of three parameters, shape, scale and location, that may be used to construct probability and cumulative density functions associated with failure patterns. In some cases, where multiple failure patterns for the same part are identified, IronMan® may construct multiple sets of parameters, each with their own failure pattern. The shape parameter enables the identification of three fundamental failure patterns; premature failure, random failure, and wear out failure. In some embodiments, the system provides recommendations for maintenance interventions associated with the failure patterns. For example, in the case of premature failure, any previously determined replacement or maintenance strategy is stopped, a root cause analysis (RCA) may be performed, and on-condition maintenance may be considered if it is practical to contain the unexpected premature failures until the cause has been eliminated. In the case of random failure, an on-condition maintenance process is applied if it is practical and cost effective. In the case of wear out failure, both scheduled replacement and on condition maintenance are applicable, although scheduled replacement may be more advantageous when the shape parameter strongly indicates wear out failure pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Micheal to the method of Robinson to include wherein the evaluation takes into account the probability of failure, wherein the probability of failure is at least partially determined using simulations of a wear out of the at least one interrelated component.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Micheal to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows accurate determination of the age of parts across a portfolio of assets based on extracting and consolidating maintenance records using natural language processing, asset ontologies, and automated statistical analysis (Micheal, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 14;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose a measurement device adapted to be utilized during maintenance or overhaul of a continuous flow engine based on a component maintenance list being adapted according to a method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement device is adapted to collect data regarding components being serviced during the maintenance or overhaul, wherein the measurement device is adapted to forward the collected data to a database to further adapt a list of components to be serviced during the maintenance or overhaul.
However, in an analogous art, Micheal teaches a measurement device adapted to be utilized during maintenance or overhaul of a continuous flow engine based on a component maintenance list being adapted according to a method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement device is adapted to collect data regarding components being serviced during the maintenance or overhaul (FIG. 4 and [0095] - In step 415, measurement data 306 is extracted from the maintenance record data 302. The extracted data is then analysed using data consolidation functions. The analysis and data consolidation step 430 performs the data consolidation process 308 using various data consolidation functions 309, 310, 311, 312, and groups parts using the part grouping process 313 to generate asset history 314), wherein the measurement device is adapted to forward the collected data to a database to further adapt a list of components to be serviced during the maintenance or overhaul (FIG. 2 and FIG. 4 and FIG. 4 and [0095] - In step 415, measurement data 306 is extracted from the maintenance record data 302. The extracted data is then analysed using data consolidation functions. The analysis and data consolidation step 430 performs the data consolidation process 308 using various data consolidation functions 309, 310, 311, 312, and groups parts using the part grouping process 313 to generate asset history 314).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Micheal to the method of Robinson to include a measurement device adapted to be utilized during maintenance or overhaul of a continuous flow engine based on a component maintenance list being adapted according to a method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement device is adapted to collect data regarding components being serviced during the maintenance or overhaul, wherein the measurement device is adapted to forward the collected data to a database to further adapt a list of components to be serviced during the maintenance or overhaul
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Micheal to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows accurate determination of the age of parts across a portfolio of assets based on extracting and consolidating maintenance records using natural language processing, asset ontologies, and automated statistical analysis (Micheal, [0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wetzer et al. (US 7,1240,59 B2) discusses a method and system for maintaining an item of equipment supports the provision of predictive maintenance in a manner which eliminates or reduces downtime of the equipment. The method includes tracking performance data on the equipment or a particular component of the equipment. At least one required maintenance activity is predicted based upon the performance data with respect to a defined performance standard. Performance of the required maintenance activity is scheduled at a defined respective time based upon the prediction (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626