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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final action in response to amendment filed on 03/24/2026. Claims 26-36 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 04/01/2026 has been considered.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument presented on sections I-III of remarks filed 03/24/2026 are persuasive. Those issues have been withdrawn.
Regarding 101 rejection, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant first argues claim require physical control unit and concrete response action. Regarding physical control unit, this control unit appears to be nothing more than generic computer controller, which is used to implement the abstract idea. It wouldn’t be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea onto practical application. As of response action, claimed scope merely require displaying a message, which can still be part of abstract idea. Therefore the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant goes on to make arguments related to actions, however, as noted above, the action can be merely displaying information, which can be part of abstract idea. Examiner would recommend expanding the actions so that it goes beyond merely displaying information.
Regarding 103 rejection, these arguments are not persuasive either.
Applicant first argues that no explanation is provided regarding citation of secondary reference. Examiner disagree but nevertheless clarifies that secondary reference’s tracking physical presence indicates claimed availability.
Applicant’s further argument is directed to similar lack of feature being taught, examiner notes that tracking presence of a power consuming device would indicate availability of asset. Applicant’s argument appear to be directed to reserving these assets, however, claimed scope can be broader than reservation of the asset. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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.
“control unit comprising a processor …” as amended in claims 26-31 do NOT invoke 112(f) as the processor provides sufficient structure to perform the entire function.
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 26-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
As per claim 26, examiner believes steps (i) – (v) are steps that recites an abstract idea. In this case, these are a series of rules used to determine availability of an asset, which falls into following rules and are therefore certain methods of organizing human activities and therefore, an abstract idea. Further, these steps can be performed mentally by a person exercising judgement and therefore would also fall into mental processes, which is also abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
Claim 26 includes sensor, control unit (comprising processor), and a display that are just being used to perform the abstract idea, all of which are merely generally linking the abstract idea into a particular field of use, whether individually or as an ordered combination. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The analysis continue to step 2B.
Step 2B
As discussed above in step 2A prong 2, the additional elements, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, are nothing more than mere generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. This wouldn’t’ provide significantly more either. Therefore, claim 26 is not eligible.
Claims 27-31 includes limitation that can further performed mentally or merely generally linking abstract idea to other field of use. Examiner notes clustering, at a low number, can be performed mentally with help of pen and paper. Further, ground truth can be performed mentally by making judgement, or it can be merely generally linking the abstract idea to machine learning field of use. Therefore, they can all be similarly analyzed as the elements discussed above and are therefore not eligible either.
Claims 32-36 can also be similarly analyzed as claims 26-31 and arrive at the same conclusion of ineligible.
Examiner notes claims would likely be eligible if industrial machinery are physically controlled to perform certain operations as a result of determined availability.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufman (US 20180011454) in view of Contario (US 10416202)
As per calim 26, Kaufman further discloses a system for determining and communicating to a user availability of an asset, the system comprising:
a sensor positioned to determine an electrical property of the asset (Kaufman, 0049-0050, power sensor); and
a control unit comprising a processor comprising instructions for performing the following steps by the control unit to determine and communicate to the user availability of the asset (see Fig. 1 for relationship between control system 22 and component 20):
(i) obtaining a data set comprising readings from the sensor over a period of time (Kaufman, 0131, processor retrieve energy usage over time. See 0049, power usage over time detected by power sensor);
(ii) determining ranges of sensor readings by performing statistical analysis of the data set obtained in step (i) (see at least Kaufman, 0133, range can be determined using standard deviation),
(iii) assigning asset operating state values to the ranges of sensor readings determined in step (ii) (see 0143, usage value correlate to operational parameter);
(iv) obtaining a further reading from the sensor (see at least Kaufman, 0137, identify usage outside baseline); and
(v) determining the operating state of the asset by comparing the further reading from the sensor obtained in step (iv) to the asset operating state values assigned in step (iii) (Kaufman, 0137, equipment is potentially faulty based on usage outside baseline); and
(vi) based upon the operating state determined in step (v), communicating to the user, via a display, a message (0153 alarm generated to be shown on operator interface 24. See 0043 operator interface 24 includes a display)
Kaufman does not explicitly disclose operation state can be sued to describe availability of the asset but indicate the result of energy usage monitoring would teach the equipment is currently operating.
Nevertheless, Contario teaches using sensor to track the presence/absence (availability) of an assent (5:41-59, tracking physical presence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to apply Contario’s availability application with Kaufman’s energy monitoring for the purpose of better tracking assets.
As per claim 28, Kaufman further discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the asset operating values are selected from the group consisting of:
"on", "off', "idle", and "indefinite - sensor offline" (see at least 0127, tracking energy during normal operation (on status).).
As per claim 30, Kaufman further discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the electrical property determined by the sensor is related to the electrical and/or power consumption of the asset and is selected from the group consisting of:
current, inductance, voltage, electrical field, magnetic field, and heat etc (0049, voltage sensor).
wherein the asset comprises a power cord and the sensor is associated with the power cord (see at least 0112, cabling such as wires are used to carry electricity between components. Examiner notes such cable/wire would be a power cord), and
wherein the system further comprises the asset wherein the asset is optionally selected from the group consisting of: laboratory or manufacturing equipment (see at least Fig. 4 for manufacturing equipment. Examiner not es “optionally” does not limit the scope, but art is provided nonetheless).
Examiner further notes Contario explicitly teaches power cord being part of the equipment (see at least abstract).
Claims 32, 34, 36 includes limitations substantially similar to claims 26, 28, 30-31 and are rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
Claim(s) 27, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufman (US 20180011454) in view of Contario (US 10416202) further in view of Andrei (US 20180285788)
As per claim 27, Kaufman does not but Andrei teaches the system of claim 26, wherein step (ii) is performed by the statistical analysis of clustering, for example, wherein the statistical analysis of clustering is performed by clustering readings from the sensor obtained in step (i) into groupings of similar readings of the sensor (see at least Andrei, 0139-0140, clustering used to identify similar consumption profile. Examiner notes “for example, wherein the statistical analysis of clustering is performed by clustering readings from the sensor obtained in step (i) into groupings of similar readings of the sensor” does not limit the scope).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine clustering with analysis of Kaufman for the purpose of generating better baseline profile.
Claim 33 includes limitation substantially similar to claim 27 and is rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
Claim(s) 29, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufman (US 20180011454) in view of Contario (US 10416202) further in view of Savvides (US 20170146576).
As per claim 29, Kaufman further discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the step of (iii) assigning asset operating values to the ranges of sensor readings from the sensor is performed using
Kaufman doesn’t explicitly disclose using a ground truth but Savvides teaches using ground truth on collected data (see at least Savvides, 0094).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine ground truth verification of Savvides with analysis of Kaufman for the purpose of generating better baseline profile.
Claim 35 includes limitation substantially similar to claim 29 and is rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights