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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been entered into the record. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 limitations, as recited in claim 1 are: “adjustment section that…calculation section that…”
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1-9) and method (claim 10) is directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which falls into the “Mathematical concepts” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of mathematical concepts.
The limitations reciting the abstract idea(s) (mathematical concepts), as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: a score adjustment section that adjusts a score indicating a degree of appropriateness regarding an implementation time of future maintenance of equipment based on an operation via an input means by a user; and a plan calculation section that makes maintenance planning of the equipment based on a result of adjustment by the score adjustment section. Independent claim 10 recites the method for performing the system of independent claim 1 without adding significantly more. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Even if the acquiring steps are considered as additional elements, these steps at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.
In addition, Applicant’s Specification describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. See, e.g., 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 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The dependent claims (2-9) are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract idea via additional details of the abstract idea. The claims 2-9 recite “further comprising a risk assessment section that calculates a failure risk value indicating a height of a future failure risk of the equipment based on a calculation technique selected by an operation via the input means by the user from among a plurality of calculation techniques that are candidates for calculating the failure risk value; wherein the plan calculation section makes the maintenance planning so as to maximize a sum of the score within a range of a predetermined service constraint regarding a plurality of pieces of the equipment or a plurality of the maintenances; further comprising a display control section that causes a display means to display a predetermined curve indicating a relationship between a failure risk value indicating a height of a future failure risk of the equipment and the score, wherein the score adjustment section changes the curve based on an operation via the input means by the user, and the plan calculation section calculates the failure risk value corresponding to an elapsed time from a predetermined reference time, and further calculates the score corresponding to the failure risk value based on the curve; wherein the curve includes a part that is convex upward, and at least one of the failure risk value of a vertex giving a maximum value of the score in the part and the score of the vertex is adjusted as the adjustment; wherein a maximum value of the failure risk value in the 53 curve is adjusted as the adjustment; wherein in a case where the score is readjusted based on an operation via the input means by the user after making the maintenance planning, the plan calculation section makes maintenance planning of the equipment again based on the score after readjustment; further comprising a display control section that causes a display section to display a setting screen regarding the maintenance planning, wherein the display control section causes the setting screen to display the equipment or the maintenances grouped based on a type of the equipment, a type of the maintenance, or an installation location of the equipment, and the score regarding the equipment or the maintenances that are grouped is collectively adjusted based on an operation via the input means by the user; wherein a third function indicating a relationship between 54 an elapsed time and the score is derived as a composite function of a first function indicating a relationship between the elapsed time from a predetermined reference time and a failure risk value indicating a height of a future failure risk of the equipment and a second function indicating a relationship between the failure risk value and the score”, without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and without additional elements that amount to significantly more to the claims.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPub 20140163936 (hereinafter “Hosking”) et al.
As per claim 1, Hosking teaches a system for analyzing a maintenance planning system, comprising:
a score adjustment section that adjusts a score indicating a degree of appropriateness regarding an implementation time of future maintenance of equipment based on an operation via an input means by a user; and a plan calculation section that makes maintenance planning of the equipment based on a result of adjustment by the score adjustment section; Examiner note: Hosking’s teaches a system for forecasting future failure risk calues of machinery, and planning accordingly. It teaches the use of predcited failure data to calculate maintenance timing and planning future maintenance. Thus, it planes maintenance based on adjusting scores/rankings for optimal maintenance scheduling. See citations below.
Hosking 0006: “In general, exemplary embodiments of the invention include systems and methods for maintenance planning and failure prediction for equipment subject to periodic failure risk and, in particular, systems and methods which model impacts of periodic variation of risk and limited observation time on the life of an asset…0040: FIG. 4 depicts a system diagram that illustrates a failure prediction and maintenance planning system 100. The system 100 predicts a subsequent failure of equipment from prior failure data of that equipment in connection with environmental and/or operational conditions collected during a time duration, e.g., an observation window. FIG. 5 depicts a flow chart that illustrates method steps for predicting a subsequent failure of equipment from prior failure data of that equipment collected in connection with environmental and/or operational conditions collected during a time duration, and maintenance planning. According to an embodiment, the collected prior failure data comes from, for example, water pipe failure data and environmental and/or operational conditions of a region, such as Washington D.C. or Cambridge, Canada. The environmental conditions may be, for example, temperature as described in connection with FIG. 2. The prior failure data collected from each different resource may have a different time duration for which the prior data was collected (e.g., 7 years in the case of Washington, D.C. and 23 years in the case of Cambridge, Canada…0063: For example, referring to Tables 3 and 4, maintenance planning and spare parts ordering can be based on the levels of failure probability and failure impact, as well as predetermined item attributes, to develop a ranking system of the highest priority areas for maintenance and a timeline for the ordering of spare parts…claim 1: A system for failure prediction for equipment subject to periodically varying failure risk, comprising: a statistical modeling module comprising: a periodic impact evaluation module capable of identifying periodic effects on the failure risk; a balance equation systems module capable of constructing balance equations with respect to phases of failure times; and an initial phase estimation module capable of estimating an unknown initial phase, wherein one or more of the modules are implemented on a computer system comprising a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory.”
Claim 10 is directed to the method for performing the system of claim 1 above. Since Hosking teaches the method, the same art and rationale apply.
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.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 20140163936 (hereinafter “Hosking”) et al., in view of U.S. Patent 9002691 to (hereinafter “Richards”) et al.
As per claim 2, Hosking teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Hosking may not explicitly teach the following. However, Richards teaches:
further comprising a risk assessment section that calculates a failure risk value indicating a height of a future failure risk of the equipment based on a calculation technique selected by an operation via the input means by the user from among a plurality of calculation techniques that are candidates for calculating the failure risk value; Richards, Abstract: “The equipment maintenance system may then determine estimated failure information for each component based on a selected statistical model. The equipment maintenance system may also generate a maintenance schedule based on the determined estimated failure information for each component of the equipment. In one embodiment, the equipment maintenance system displays the equipment maintenance information…039-040: the equipment maintenance system 106 receives an assignment of a statistical model to at least one of the components corresponding to the selected portion of the tree representation. The equipment maintenance system 106 may generate an interface for displaying statistical models and an interface for receiving a selection of one or more statistical models. The statistical model may be indicative of a rate of failure, such as a linear or exponential failure rate, for the particular portion of the equipment. In one embodiment, the equipment maintenance system 106 allows a different statistical model to be applied to different portions of a tree. For example, one statistical model may be assigned to one sub-tree and another statistical model may be assigned to another sub-tree indicating that one set of components may fail at one rate and another set of components may fail at another rate. The equipment maintenance system 106 may generate an interface for receiving other variables that may be used to calculate equipment failure information with further precision. The interface may also receive a cutoff point in a given statistical distribution, above which an event is assumed to occur. Block 710 is discussed hereinafter in more detail in relation to FIGS. 10 and 11.”
Hosking and Richards are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hosking with the aforementioned teachings from Richards with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to select data with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze data [Richards 0040].
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 20140163936 (hereinafter “Hosking”) et al., in view of U.S. PGPub 20170091688 to (hereinafter “Lopes”) et al.
As per claim 3, Hosking teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Hosking may not explicitly teach the following. However, Lopes teaches:
wherein the plan calculation section makes the maintenance planning so as to maximize a sum of the score within a range of a predetermined service constraint regarding a plurality of pieces of the equipment or a plurality of the maintenances; Lopes, 0031: “The non-limiting embodiments herein create a method to automatically solve the full problem of integrating and coordinating operations, asset management and resources administration in a single solution, which optimizes the scheduling of field services considering simultaneously the demands, interests and constraints of those three areas...0051: With given inputs, the example non-limiting automated scheduling optimization method 14 generates an optimum feasible scheduling solution to accomplish the maintenance and other services demands, considering the production demands, the available resources and obeying the business' constraints…0084: Projects Sequencer 102: the projects sequencer assures the optimization criteria to reduce as fast as possible the risk of failures in equipment of the production system. The project sequencer 102 takes the projects backlog and defines the optimum sequence for projects allocation. The criterion for sorting prioritizes first the allocation of projects that most contribute to reduce the risk of equipment failures. Such criterion considers multi objective aspects such as, but not limited to: equipment probability of failure; impact of equipment failure; type of project; internal or external policies and regulations; production opportunities and others. Assuming that the priority indicated in each project is related to the risk of a potential failure in the associated equipment, the sorting criterion establishes that the most critical projects have to be allocated first. In order to eliminate the risk of failures faster, taking projects with the same priority, the ones with shorter duration shall be allocated first. That generates the list of projects (backlog) sorted by priority and duration. The first project of the list is the one that is allocated first by the global manager. The project sequencer 102 delivers a list of sorted projects to the tasks sequencer 104.”
Hosking and Lopes are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hosking with the aforementioned teachings from Richards with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the utilize score data with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze data [Lopes 0051].
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 20140163936 (hereinafter “Hosking”) et al., in view of U.S. PGPub 20220026879 to (hereinafter “Kale”) et al.
As per claim 7, Hosking teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Hosking may not explicitly teach the following. However, Kale teaches:
wherein in a case where the score is readjusted based on an operation via the input means by the user after making the maintenance planning, the plan calculation section makes maintenance planning of the equipment again based on the score after readjustment; Kale, Abstract: “ In one example, one or more sensors are configured to generate a sensor data stream during operation of a machine. An artificial neural network (ANN) is configured to receive the sensor data stream and predict a maintenance service for the machine based on the sensor data stream. For example, the ANN can be trained using the sensor data stream collected within a predetermined time period of a machine being newly-installed in an assembly line or other industrial automation facility. The machine can be considered to be operating in a normal condition during the predetermined time period such that the ANN can be trained to detect anomaly that deviates from the normal patterns of the sensor data stream. For example, the ANN can be a spiking neural network (SNN)…0033-0050: During a period of normal operation, the SNN is trained to recognize normal data patterns. Subsequently, the SNN detects anomaly that deviates from the normal patterns. Based on the detection, a predictive maintenance is scheduled. The SNN can be trained to predict common troubles by inducing/reproducing the troubles in the system. In some cases, the SNN can be used in conjunction with a black box data recorder that stores a recent set of data such that when an operational or other problem occurs, the black box data can be retrieved to train the SNN to recognize the indications to the trouble ahead of time. Subsequently, the SNN can suggest pre-emptive maintenance operations to avoid the foregoing troubles.”Examiner note: Matching, readjusting with ANN/SNN.
Hosking and Kale are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hosking with the aforementioned teachings from Kale with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the system to learn/readjust with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze data [Kale 0033].
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 20140163936 (hereinafter “Hosking”) et al., in view of U.S. Patent 10109122 to (hereinafter “Farahat”) et al.
As per claim 8, Hosking teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Hosking may not explicitly teach the following. However, Farahat teaches:
further comprising a display control section that causes a display section to display a setting screen regarding the maintenance planning, wherein the display control section causes the setting screen to display the equipment or the maintenances grouped based on a type of the equipment, a type of the maintenance, or an installation location of the equipment, and the score regarding the equipment or the maintenances that are grouped is collectively adjusted based on an operation via the input means by the user; Farahat 026-039: “Example implementations are directed to a systematic approach for maintenance analytics that evaluates the effectiveness of a maintenance action or a group of actions in improving the performance of equipment and its components. The approach of the example implementations described herein depends on first capturing actual measurements from the equipment that reflect its performance before and after each maintenance action and then estimating the statistical significances of the performance improvements. Such individual comparisons between before and after performance are then aggregated to make conclusions about groups of actions (actions from one type, by one vendor, in some location, etc.)… The received data can be processed through a series of modules of the system architecture, according to the desired implementation. Example implementations of the modules can include the data preparation module 103, which is configured to prepare the raw sensor data by removing noise and identifying the subset of sensor data that can be utilized for further analysis. Further detail of the data preparation module 103 is provided in FIG. 2(a). The performance modeling module 104 is configured to mine historical sensor data (e.g. sensor data obtained in the past measuring desired metrics of sensors monitoring components or other aspects of an apparatus) and build performance models to quantify the performance of the equipment and its components. Further details of the performance modeling module 104 is provided in FIG. 4. The maintenance action effectiveness analytics module 105 is configured to monitor individual maintenance actions and determine the effectiveness of each action in improving the equipment performance. Further detail of the maintenance action effectiveness module 105 is provided in FIG. 8. The maintenance category effectiveness analytics module 107 is configured to monitor a group of maintenance actions and determine the effectiveness of this group in improving the equipment performance. Further detail of the maintenance category effectiveness analytics module 107 is provided in FIG. 11. The maintenance analytics system can be configured to provide information utilized as alerts and insights to the system at 106.”
Hosking and Farahat are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hosking with the aforementioned teachings from Farahat with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the system to learn/readjust with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and analyze data [Farahat 0033].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 9 are allowable over the prior art, however these claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101. Furthermore, if these claims overcome the 101 rejection, they would be allowable only if rewritten in independent form to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hampapur; Arun. DISTRIBUTION NETWORK MAINTENANCE PLANNING, .U.S. PGPub 20130041705 The present application generally relates to maintaining infrastructure. More particularly, the present application relates to automatically establishing a maintenance plan of an infrastructure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”)./Arif Ullah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625